A Religious Protest Largely From the Left

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Another hundred billion for Iraq (now up to $400B)... over half a trillion dollars (and growing) defense budget which of course is more than all other nations on the planet combined... but god forbid we take care of our poor.

Sick, sick society.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Hurricane Katrina was an excellent example of how BAD government will lead to failures. The notion that churches, the Salvation Army, and corporations MET the needs of MOST people is a farce. The Red Cross delivered the overwelming amount of aid to the people that literally kept them alive over the first few weeks. It is quite reasonable to believe competent leadership of FEMA would have dramatically affected the FEMA preparation/response to Katrina.

The second quote is fundamentally dishonest and the epitome of the BS agendas of these fake Christians. Allegedly their (version) of the religion calls them to rally for politicians that oppose abortion, support the advocacy of Christianity, etc. Yet somehow the Biblical "mandate" to care for the poor demands less (if any) political advocacy?! The Bible doesn't say government should be the vehicle for spreading Christian theology/ethos for any particular issue . . . yet these hypocrites clearly feel comfortable to pick and choose.

They rally because that is were the fight is. No other insituation passes and enforces laws, do they? It is just government. If one seeks to change they need to go through the political process.

But charity doesn't and shouldn't be a government issue, because once it is invovled it is no longer voluneteer process. Christians beleive charity should be an issue of free will and choice (that is Bibilcally supported) not government mandate.

The differnece between left and right on the issue, isn't that charity is bad, both agree its good. One side just believes in forced charity.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Hurricane Katrina was an excellent example of how BAD government will lead to failures. The notion that churches, the Salvation Army, and corporations MET the needs of MOST people is a farce. The Red Cross delivered the overwelming amount of aid to the people that literally kept them alive over the first few weeks. It is quite reasonable to believe competent leadership of FEMA would have dramatically affected the FEMA preparation/response to Katrina.

The second quote is fundamentally dishonest and the epitome of the BS agendas of these fake Christians. Allegedly their (version) of the religion calls them to rally for politicians that oppose abortion, support the advocacy of Christianity, etc. Yet somehow the Biblical "mandate" to care for the poor demands less (if any) political advocacy?! The Bible doesn't say government should be the vehicle for spreading Christian theology/ethos for any particular issue . . . yet these hypocrites clearly feel comfortable to pick and choose.

They rally because that is were the fight is. No other insituation passes and enforces laws, do they? It is just government. If one seeks to change they need to go through the political process.

But charity doesn't and shouldn't be a government issue, because once it is invovled it is no longer voluneteer process. Christians beleive charity should be an issue of free will and choice (that is Bibilcally supported) not government mandate.

The differnece between left and right on the issue, isn't that charity is bad, both agree its good. One side just believes in forced charity.

I think the reason anyone believes in "forced" charity is that they believe, rightly IMHO, that people would rather not help their fellow man. I'm fine with the concept of private charity, but I don't think it would work. Not because private charity is "bad", on the contrary, I think many of them are better run, but because I don't think private charity would get enough contributions. How many anti-welfare folks simply think their money would better be spent by private charities, and how many think the poor are a bunch of lazy slobs who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Let's be honest with ourselves, how many would simply take the tax break and say to hell with the poor? I'm not too impressed by the idea of charity being Biblically supporter, either. This may be a Christian country, and private Christian charities do good work, but I'm not too impressed with the overall quality of the Christians in this country, I doubt those church charities would see another thin dime no matter how many government programs were cut.

Edit: Maybe I sound like I sound jaded against humanity here, but I prefer to think of it as being a realist. I think the role of government is to provide things for society that individuals would otherwise not get together and provide. Police are a great example of this, I've never had an interaction with the police that was to my benefit, but should the choice to help pay for police be mine? The whole argument for making social support services private hinges on an idea that is oddly socialist, that given the choice, people will work towards the good of society. But that's not how it works. Given the choice, it seems like a lot of people will do whatever suits their selfish needs at the moment. Which is not a great way to build a good society.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Hurricane Katrina was an excellent example of how BAD government will lead to failures. The notion that churches, the Salvation Army, and corporations MET the needs of MOST people is a farce. The Red Cross delivered the overwelming amount of aid to the people that literally kept them alive over the first few weeks. It is quite reasonable to believe competent leadership of FEMA would have dramatically affected the FEMA preparation/response to Katrina.

The second quote is fundamentally dishonest and the epitome of the BS agendas of these fake Christians. Allegedly their (version) of the religion calls them to rally for politicians that oppose abortion, support the advocacy of Christianity, etc. Yet somehow the Biblical "mandate" to care for the poor demands less (if any) political advocacy?! The Bible doesn't say government should be the vehicle for spreading Christian theology/ethos for any particular issue . . . yet these hypocrites clearly feel comfortable to pick and choose.

They rally because that is were the fight is. No other insituation passes and enforces laws, do they? It is just government. If one seeks to change they need to go through the political process.

But charity doesn't and shouldn't be a government issue, because once it is invovled it is no longer voluneteer process. Christians beleive charity should be an issue of free will and choice (that is Bibilcally supported) not government mandate.

The differnece between left and right on the issue, isn't that charity is bad, both agree its good. One side just believes in forced charity.

The "Biblical Support" for your arguement(Freewill/choice) is a rather flimsy interpretation. An interpretation preferred from the Right, but not the Left winngs o Christian thought. Jesus didn't say, "Do......., or not. "

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Hurricane Katrina was an excellent example of how BAD government will lead to failures. The notion that churches, the Salvation Army, and corporations MET the needs of MOST people is a farce. The Red Cross delivered the overwelming amount of aid to the people that literally kept them alive over the first few weeks. It is quite reasonable to believe competent leadership of FEMA would have dramatically affected the FEMA preparation/response to Katrina.

The second quote is fundamentally dishonest and the epitome of the BS agendas of these fake Christians. Allegedly their (version) of the religion calls them to rally for politicians that oppose abortion, support the advocacy of Christianity, etc. Yet somehow the Biblical "mandate" to care for the poor demands less (if any) political advocacy?! The Bible doesn't say government should be the vehicle for spreading Christian theology/ethos for any particular issue . . . yet these hypocrites clearly feel comfortable to pick and choose.

They rally because that is were the fight is. No other insituation passes and enforces laws, do they? It is just government. If one seeks to change they need to go through the political process.

But charity doesn't and shouldn't be a government issue, because once it is invovled it is no longer voluneteer process. Christians beleive charity should be an issue of free will and choice (that is Bibilcally supported) not government mandate.

The differnece between left and right on the issue, isn't that charity is bad, both agree its good. One side just believes in forced charity.

Dude that's beyond illogical. Technically, tithes are "forced" charity. Eminent domain to take land for stadiums is forced charity. Taxation to build the stadium is forced charity. Does your government ask you how much to GIVE to Israel? How about our contribution to the UN? Did you get the request for fuel oil to the DPRK? Our government has all kinds of "forced" charity to countries, companies, and individuals.

The demarcation between left and right is clearly NOT a question of compulsion. Christians are compelled (better yet should feel the impulse) to give aid to those in need. Yet they employ a very selective evaluation of what "needs" should be met. For some odd reason, every American child should be compelled to pray but not eat a quality a breakfast. We need the 10 Commandments in our halls of justice but indigent defendants don't need quality representation.


There's nothing inherently Christian about tax cuts. It's a total non sequitur that tax cuts lead to economic growth which increases tax revenues which allows government to spend on social programs. We've got decades and decades of proof that government spends money on whatever it chooses regardless of the impact on the budget.

And let us not forget, the alleged Christians currently running the government decided to CUT decades old programs serving the needy with the expressed goal of offsetting the expense of tax cuts for people that are better off. Don't be fooled when they call it a deficit reduction program. It's just another example of a brazen government bereft of decency.

 

[Meuge]

^ Excellent post - eloquent, logical, and knowledgeable.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the reason anyone believes in "forced" charity is that they believe, rightly IMHO, that people would rather not help their fellow man.

Most natural disasters, not only in the U.S. but abroad (Asian earthquakes, the tsunami last year) lead to millions of dollars being raised in the U.S. (and other nations). I don't agree with your statement.

I'm fine with the concept of private charity, but I don't think it would work. Not because private charity is "bad", on the contrary, I think many of them are better run, but because I don't think private charity would get enough contributions.

That's just baffling. This nation survived for 100+ years without any major federal entitlement programs. Despite what the left tells you, scaling back the federal government's massive welfare programs will not lead to the collapse of the republic.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude that's beyond illogical. Technically, tithes are "forced" charity.

What?!? How?!? Unlike the IRS, no church in the country has the legal power to seize assets, garnish wages, or freeze bank accounts. There's nothing forced about it. And unlike the IRS, most churches don't ask for more than 10%, or even keep track of who gives what (unless one requests tracking of contributions for tax purposes).

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: shrumpage
They rally because that is were the fight is. No other insituation passes and enforces laws, do they? It is just government. If one seeks to change they need to go through the political process.

But charity doesn't and shouldn't be a government issue, because once it is invovled it is no longer voluneteer process. Christians beleive charity should be an issue of free will and choice (that is Bibilcally supported) not government mandate.

The differnece between left and right on the issue, isn't that charity is bad, both agree its good. One side just believes in forced charity.

Dude that's beyond illogical. Technically, tithes are "forced" charity. Eminent domain to take land for stadiums is forced charity. Taxation to build the stadium is forced charity. Does your government ask you how much to GIVE to Israel? How about our contribution to the UN? Did you get the request for fuel oil to the DPRK? Our government has all kinds of "forced" charity to countries, companies, and individuals.

Techincally? um okay. You don't pay your taxes the IRS comes after you, and can make your life miserable. Thats how taxes are enforced.

How are your tithes enforced? you get audited at the end of the year by your, or a church? Make sure you pay your amount, don't want to have the church seize your house, or car....

oh wait.... its not like that at all. Its optional - NT states, IRC that God prefers a cheerful giver - hard to be cheerful if your forced.

he demarcation between left and right is clearly NOT a question of compulsion. Christians are compelled (better yet should feel the impulse) to give aid to those in need. Yet they employ a very selective evaluation of what "needs" should be met. For some odd reason, every American child should be compelled to pray but not eat a quality a breakfast. We need the 10 Commandments in our halls of justice but indigent defendants don't need quality representation.

You feel that every American child should be compelled to eat a quality breakfast? Great so do I. But instead of forcing everyone to pay for through a bloated mandated program - pass a law. Require parents to feed their kids "quality" breakfast. But, now you have government set the standards for what "quality" is. I've worked at schools - let me tell government food and government standards are anything but quality. Yet you would prefer them with more power.

A parent can provided a quality breakfast for about 15 - 20 cents and 5 minutes of their time a day. why should the government do it? And if a parent is incapable of feeding their kids, the abliity to care for their kids should be question.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The second quote is fundamentally dishonest and the epitome of the BS agendas of these fake Christians.

No it's not...in fact, I even go so far as to clarify that the most effective charity organizations need not be church based...I trust non-profit organizations far more then the government to solve society's problems...it's the distinction of people being motivated to solve these problems versus being compelled or forced by the government to do so...which will get the better response you think?

 

[mect]

Also, there are programs for poor people already in place. There is heating assistance, telephone assistance, housing assistance through multiple programs, food stamps, wic, chip, the list goes on and on. My wife worked for a long time with mentally disabled and the kids she worked with got alot more than most children (at least most children we know). The problem isn't resources, but distribution. The problem is the children who aren't on the lists because the parents are too proud, don't care, take your pick. The resources allocated for helping the poor are there, it is the distribution of the goods that is the problem.