Christian, Why Do You Despise the Poor?

[lovely182]

"Here are some examples that have the language used by Fox News to describe “the poor:”

“America’s poor are actually living the good life.”

“A nation of Takers.”

“Entitlement Mentality.”

“The moocher class.”

“Subsided freeloaders.”

“People who sleep ‘til noon.”

“The handout nation rolls on.”

“The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things, what they lack is the richness of spirit.” (That was Stuart Varney.)

“These programs do make people lazy.”

"The true causes of poverty... are these: poor education, addiction, irresponsible behavior, and laziness"

“Addictive behavior, laziness and apathy all override social justice programs."

“They get food stamps, it makes it easy for them to sponge off of their girlfriends and spouses.”

“The more of the leeches that he [Obama] can get to vote for him …” "the 'Takers' are able to out-vote the 'Makers.'"

I find these characteristic caricatures morally and religiously offensive in speaking of those whom Jesus called “the least of these.” So I thought it might be spiritually helpful to compare Fox’s language about the poor to the language of Christ, both in substance and tone, and the deep feelings that these completely contrary languages, and their comparison, reveals.

You’ve heard Fox on the poor; now hear Jesus:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18).

“The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them” (Matthew 11:5).

“If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21).

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.” (Luke 6:20-21).

“When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 14:12-14).

“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me” (Matthew 25:34-36).

“Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).

.... Addressing both personal and social responsibility, family and economic issues, education and racism is crucial. But blaming and demonizing the poor is not called for — it is shameful. There’s the choice here, so as Christians, let’s make that choice—between the theology of Fox and the theology of Jesus."

~Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Like with any other polarizing topic here in the US, the truth lies somewhere between the two extreme narratives.

"The poor are living the good life" is obviously false...however, the concept that every welfare recipient is a hard worker who's just down on their luck is just as false.

"The true causes of poverty... are these: poor education, addiction, irresponsible behavior, and laziness"

In this case...that's a true statement. Those four elements either alone (or in combination with each other) can absolutely tie to poverty. Access to quality (affordable) education is essential if we want to break the cycle of poverty in certain communities. ...we know that to be true by seeing how other 1st world countries have improved the situation. ...but with that being said, the other 3 things on that list do occur, are within a person's control, and can ruin lives if not properly addressed.

“These programs do make people lazy.”

While that's a harsh way of putting it...Mr. Obama puts it in more politically correct terms

Our president on the matter:
I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.… As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.


All of that aside, why do people insist on using Fox to define what conservatives think?

This thread, in essence, seems to be making an attempt at shooting down false generalizations...yet, between the title and the fact that it's quoting Fox, it seems to be, in and of itself, making the sweeping implication that an entire group of people must think like Fox.

"Fox said this!...so, Christians, why do you hate poor people????"

 

[lovely182]

Like with any other polarizing topic here in the US, the truth lies somewhere between the two extreme narratives.

"The poor are living the good life" is obviously false...however, the concept that every welfare recipient is a hard worker who's just down on their luck is just as false.



In this case...that's a true statement. Those four elements either alone (or in combination with each other) can absolutely tie to poverty. Access to quality (affordable) education is essential if we want to break the cycle of poverty in certain communities. ...we know that to be true by seeing how other 1st world countries have improved the situation. ...but with that being said, the other 3 things on that list do occur, are within a person's control, and can ruin lives if not properly addressed.



While that's a harsh way of putting it...Mr. Obama puts it in more politically correct terms

Our president on the matter:
I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.… As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.


All of that aside, why do people insist on using Fox to define what conservatives think?

This thread, in essence, seems to be making an attempt at shooting down false generalizations...yet, between the title and the fact that it's quoting Fox, it seems to be, in and of itself, making the sweeping implication that an entire group of people must think like Fox.

"Fox said this!...so, Christians, why do you hate poor people????"

You seemed to miss the main point of this post:

"Addressing both personal and social responsibility, family and economic issues, education and racism is crucial. But blaming and demonizing the poor is not called for — it is shameful. There’s the choice here, so as Christians, let’s make that choice—between the theology of Fox and the theology of Jesus."

"Like with any other polarizing topic here in the US, the truth lies somewhere between the two extreme narratives."

The purpose of this post was not to seek out truth in Fox's statements about the poor. It's to challenge the attitudes that Fox has towards poor people. You can't deny the fact that many in Fox's organization are self-proclaimed Christians who constantly spew hatred for those who are poor. And it's not just Fox, there are many Christians who have the same attitude towards the poor. We look down on the poor and blame them for their circumstances, instead of loving and caring for them the way Jesus would.

We either have the heart for the poor as Jesus did, or we don't. And if we don't, that is indeed shameful.

 

[jacks]

Although I agree we could all be a bit more compassionate to our fellow man, I don't know if the rich are any less compassionate than the poor.

This site has many interesting facts on giving. Not surprisingly it is the rich who give them most and surprisingly to me 24 or the 25 most generous states are "red" states. So maybe the Fox news group bashes the poor, but they do the most to support them. Another question might be "Why do the poor hate the rich?"

 

[lovely182]

Although I agree we could all be a bit more compassionate to our fellow man, I don't know if the rich are any less compassionate than the poor.

This site has many interesting facts on giving. Not surprisingly it is the rich who give them most and surprisingly to me 24 or the 25 most generous states are "red" states. So maybe the Fox news group bashes the poor, but they do the most to support them. Another question might be "Why do the poor hate the rich?"

Wow.......

 

[KitKatMatt]

Not surprisingly it is the rich who give them most

Not surprising at all since the rich have the most to give.

I can't even support myself, I'm doing good if I am able to give 20 bucks to the local charities I try very hard to support.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You seemed to miss the main point of this post:

"Addressing both personal and social responsibility, family and economic issues, education and racism is crucial. But blaming and demonizing the poor is not called for — it is shameful. There’s the choice here, so as Christians, let’s make that choice—between the theology of Fox and the theology of Jesus."

"Like with any other polarizing topic here in the US, the truth lies somewhere between the two extreme narratives."

The purpose of this post was not to seek out truth in Fox's statements about the poor. It's to challenge the attitudes that Fox has towards poor people. You can't deny the fact that many in Fox's organization are self-proclaimed Christians who constantly spew hatred for those who are poor. And it's not just Fox, there are many Christians who have the same attitude towards the poor. We look down on the poor and blame them for their circumstances, instead of loving and caring for them the way Jesus would.

We either have the heart for the poor as Jesus did, or we don't. And if we don't, that is indeed shameful.

I understand the point you were trying to make...

...the point I was making is that the right solution to this, from a socio-economic standpoint isn't to say "we have to make an "all-or-nothing" choice between 1 of 2 ideologies", it's two evaluate the different ideologies, keep the parts from each that make sense, and get rid of the parts that don't.

I'll provide an example...

1) If we take a position that "you give money to the poor unconditionally, no exceptions", there are absolutely people who will abuse that and lose all motivation to care for themselves...that's absolutely true. Fox is right about that...even President Obama agrees with that point per the quote I included in my first post.

2) If we take the polar opposite position that "everyone has to care for themselves, no exceptions", there are people who legitimately can't help themselves who will fall through the cracks.

We shouldn't be saying "alright guys, let's all choose, are we doing #1 or #2"...we should be striving for a "best of both worlds" approach where we apply the two principles based on when they make sense.

If there's a person who's abusing disability...they've been collecting for months, and they're spotted on a golf course. I have no problem going "Fox News" on them and saying "Hey moocher you're bleeding the system, you're cut off, go back to work or starve".

Flipside, if there's a person who's ill or is suffering with a disease that puts them in constant pain and limits their ability to work, I have absolutely no problem with providing them with some financial assistance.


In the long run, a multi-faced approach is better for everyone. If we can take a stern position on the cases where the guy is collecting a check and sneaking out and playing golf, that would free up more funds for the guy in a wheelchair so that he can get maybe $600/month instead of the measly $350/month he's getting now.

 

[All Englands Skies]

There will always be "poor scroungers" and "Rich Fat Cats"

But sorry to be blunt, who has the power, control, most of the worlds wealth, can control the lives of others and let other people suffer while they cream the profits, I cant tell you, it is not the "poor scroungers"

SO sorry if I ignore the "poor degenerates" and make more of an issue about "rich fat cats", but I really see them as the bigger problems and the more unjust and unfair, while the "poor scroungers" is a small fry issue over blown.

 

[Tellastory]

"The true causes of poverty... are these: poor education, addiction, irresponsible behavior, and laziness"

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. 11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. 12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Poverty can strike any one, regardless of education, good health, responsible behavior, and even when being hyper-active.

It all comes down to trusting the Lord even when in poverty, and not judging the poor or any one by outward appearances which James said was of evil in the second chapter.

James 2:1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Yeah... I would say one could be judged by the way they judged others by outward appearances. Growing up in America, we all need the Lord Jesus Christ not to do that.

Hebrews 13 King James Version (KJV)
13:1 Let brotherly love continue. 2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To their credit most of the poor do not remain so, so while the numbers remain stable the faces are always changing. That said many who remain are caught in generational poverty, which is very difficult to escape from, as it means leaving what has become a 'social order' that has persisted for generations.

 

[lovely182]

Although I agree we could all be a bit more compassionate to our fellow man, I don't know if the rich are any less compassionate than the poor.

This site has many interesting facts on giving. Not surprisingly it is the rich who give them most and surprisingly to me 24 or the 25 most generous states are "red" states. So maybe the Fox news group bashes the poor, but they do the most to support them. Another question might be "Why do the poor hate the rich?"

Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong? (James 2:5-7)

 

[lovely182]

I understand the point you were trying to make...

...the point I was making is that the right solution to this, from a socio-economic standpoint isn't to say "we have to make an "all-or-nothing" choice between 1 of 2 ideologies", it's two evaluate the different ideologies, keep the parts from each that make sense, and get rid of the parts that don't.

I'll provide an example...

1) If we take a position that "you give money to the poor unconditionally, no exceptions", there are absolutely people who will abuse that and lose all motivation to care for themselves...that's absolutely true. Fox is right about that...even President Obama agrees with that point per the quote I included in my first post.

2) If we take the polar opposite position that "everyone has to care for themselves, no exceptions", there are people who legitimately can't help themselves who will fall through the cracks.

We shouldn't be saying "alright guys, let's all choose, are we doing #1 or #2"...we should be striving for a "best of both worlds" approach where we apply the two principles based on when they make sense.

If there's a person who's abusing disability...they've been collecting for months, and they're spotted on a golf course. I have no problem going "Fox News" on them and saying "Hey moocher you're bleeding the system, you're cut off, go back to work or starve".

Flipside, if there's a person who's ill or is suffering with a disease that puts them in constant pain and limits their ability to work, I have absolutely no problem with providing them with some financial assistance.


In the long run, a multi-faced approach is better for everyone. If we can take a stern position on the cases where the guy is collecting a check and sneaking out and playing golf, that would free up more funds for the guy in a wheelchair so that he can get maybe $600/month instead of the measly $350/month he's getting now.

*Sigh*

 

[All Englands Skies]

Although I agree we could all be a bit more compassionate to our fellow man, I don't know if the rich are any less compassionate than the poor.

This site has many interesting facts on giving. Not surprisingly it is the rich who give them most and surprisingly to me 24 or the 25 most generous states are "red" states. So maybe the Fox news group bashes the poor, but they do the most to support them. Another question might be "Why do the poor hate the rich?"

The "Widows Offering" kind of explains why the "rich give the most" it is right there in the Bible.

 

[High Fidelity]

Well, it is FOX news. Clearly the poor just need to 'stop being lazy'.

I always found it quite funny, though. Especially the politicians calling for welfare reform/cuts when they're claiming subsidies.

Wouldn't surprise me if FOX themselves were claiming subsidies or exploiting loopholes.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Well, it is FOX news. Clearly the poor just need to 'stop being lazy'.

I always found it quite funny, though. Especially the politicians calling for welfare reform/cuts when they're claiming subsidies.

Wouldn't surprise me if FOX themselves were claiming subsidies or exploiting loopholes.

It makes you wonder: Why do multi-million/billion dollar businesses get "welfare" in the form of subsidies? The ones off the top of my had are huge multi-million dollar farms, and just about every major league sport. Those guys have money and get government money, but that is ok if people who have money get my tax money? I shall shennanigans.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It makes you wonder: Why do multi-million/billion dollar businesses get "welfare" in the form of subsidies? The ones off the top of my had are huge multi-million dollar farms, and just about every major league sport. Those guys have money and get government money, but that is ok if people who have money get my tax money? I shall shennanigans.

Sometimes the government gives them subsidies in order to do social engineering.

Other times because their foreign competitors are subsidized by their governments and that gives those foreign businesses and unfair advantage of American companies.

 

[High Fidelity]

It makes you wonder: Why do multi-million/billion dollar businesses get "welfare" in the form of subsidies? The ones off the top of my had are huge multi-million dollar farms, and just about every major league sport. Those guys have money and get government money, but that is ok if people who have money get my tax money? I shall shennanigans.

Reminds me of this. Government welfare for the most profitable industry...

 

[NightHawkeye]

You seemed to miss the main point of this post:

Wow.......

*Sigh*

One wonders what the value of discussion is when well articulated points go unaddressed.

 

[South Bound]

"Here are some examples that have the language used by Fox News to describe “the poor:”

“America’s poor are actually living the good life.”

“A nation of Takers.”

“Entitlement Mentality.”

“The moocher class.”

“Subsided freeloaders.”

“People who sleep ‘til noon.”

“The handout nation rolls on.”

“The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things, what they lack is the richness of spirit.” (That was Stuart Varney.)

“These programs do make people lazy.”

"The true causes of poverty... are these: poor education, addiction, irresponsible behavior, and laziness"

“Addictive behavior, laziness and apathy all override social justice programs."

“They get food stamps, it makes it easy for them to sponge off of their girlfriends and spouses.”

“The more of the leeches that he [Obama] can get to vote for him …” "the 'Takers' are able to out-vote the 'Makers.'"

I find these characteristic caricatures morally and religiously offensive in speaking of those whom Jesus called “the least of these.” So I thought it might be spiritually helpful to compare Fox’s language about the poor to the language of Christ, both in substance and tone, and the deep feelings that these completely contrary languages, and their comparison, reveals.

You’ve heard Fox on the poor; now hear Jesus:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18).

“The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them” (Matthew 11:5).

“If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21).

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.” (Luke 6:20-21).

“When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 14:12-14).

“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me” (Matthew 25:34-36).

“Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).

.... Addressing both personal and social responsibility, family and economic issues, education and racism is crucial. But blaming and demonizing the poor is not called for — it is shameful. There’s the choice here, so as Christians, let’s make that choice—between the theology of Fox and the theology of Jesus."

~Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners.

First of all, congratulations on being able to butcher so many Bible verses in one post.

Second, none of the alleged quotations from FOX (none of which, did you provide citations for, so we have no way of knowing if they came from FOX or the Democrat talking points) show that Christians "despise the poor".

Third, should we only apply those verses you posted to the poor, have of which have nothing to do with poverty, anyway, or should we apply all of the Word of God to the poor. If not, why not?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

*Sigh*

You can sigh all you want...as an atheist (in accordance with the 1st amendment), I'm under no obligation to adhere to the rule "always take care of the poor no matter what"...more importantly, the government is under no obligation to adhere to that position either.

I used to be a Christian, and have read large parts of the bible, and from my understanding, the instruction to always take care of the poor was an obligation of the individual Christian, not of the collective government.

An individual is free to do whatever they choose with their expendable income. If you've got $50 in your pocket, you're free to hand it to a homeless person, donate it to your church, stick it in a birthday card, or bury it in your back yard...that's your money and that decision impacts you and only you. However, when you're talking about government funds...those aren't your funds, those are "our" funds an the government has no right to use those funds to satisfy a religious agenda.

IE: the government has every right to put stipulations and quality control checks in place for their safety net programs.

...not even the most liberal progressives in Washington are advocating a 'no strings attached' safety net system.