Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[AirPo]

A little late, but interesting.

(CNN) - An organization of Democratically-aligned Christian leaders will launch new radio ads Tuesday attacking Republicans for neglecting Biblical lessons to care for the needy in their plans to raise the debt ceiling, according to the group.

Full story here -->

 

[chaz345]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

Not to sound smarmy, but is this not a Christian Nation?

 

[oldbetang]

Not to sound smarmy, but is this not a Christian Nation?

Is the nation a living breathing human being?

 

[Douger]

Calling out lawmakers for not writing Christianity into law is dumb.

 

[BondiHarry]

Not to sound smarmy, but is this not a Christian Nation?

This nation is still subject to God's laws whether we acknowledge it or not.

 

[chaz345]

Not to sound smarmy, but is this not a Christian Nation?

No it's not really in any functional sense of the term. The hypocricy though is that those that argue most strongly for the idea of government aid to the poor based on Christ's commands are the ones that most vociferously resist the idea that the nation was even founded on Christian principles. The bottom line though is, regardless of what the nation was founded on, Christ's directive was to individuals, not to the government. Ironically, or hypocritically if you want, those that are accused of not caring for the poor based on their resistance to the government doing more of it actually do more individually than those who supposedly care more but who advocate that it's a government function.

 

[chaz345]

This nation is still subject to God's laws whether we acknowledge it or not.

But is "this nation" the people or the government? I know that in theory our government is us, but problems with the system by which we elect our leaders makes reality somewhat different than that.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

I agree. The fact that it's always the liberals who get so upset when we try to inject our religious beliefs into the public dialogue aside, I'm having a hard time seeing what the debt ceiling has to do with the treatment of the poor, when Christ always gave the responsibility of taking care of the poor to His followers and even then, only in the context of charity being an illustration of the Gospel.

Remember, Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you have done these things to the least of these, you have done it to Me", not "Inasmuch as you have lobbied the government to create a bureaucratic program that is wasteful and only subsidizes poverty, rather than helping the poor out of their poverty, taking money from one group of people who has earned it to give to another group who has not earned it, you have done it to Me".

Not to sound smarmy, but is this not a Christian Nation?

It was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but it is not a theocracy.

 

[DaisyDay]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

I love that argument - the heck with the needy, what's important is who helps the needy not that they be helped. It's not about the poor, it's about the well off garnering their brownie points to heaven.

 

[abysmul]

As a Christian, I'm called to help those less fortunate, those in need. I'm not called to form a government to confiscate the possessions of others and redistribute to those who I deem worthy or in need.

 

[BondiHarry]

I love that argument - the heck with the needy, what's important is who helps the needy not that they be helped. It's not about the poor, it's about the well off garnering their brownie points to heaven.

Just to point out the obvious, when government taxes people to fund its welfare state they take that money neither knowing nor caring how those who are being taxed care for the poor and government substitutes the wisdom of people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama in how that money is used over the wisdom of a heck of a lot of people who are far smarter and more responsible than they are.

But you're right, with the government run welfare state it ISN'T about the poor since these government programs in the final analysis do demonstrable harm to the poor, it is about politicians glorifying themselves in their attitude of 'see how much we care for the poor, we give them free health care and a minimum wage and subsidized housing and ...".

 

[thaumaturgy]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

Why do some Americans act like the Government is some esoteric entity that exists outside of us?

I don't know what state you live in, but in most of the U.S. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

The government is us.

So the fact that we have a political party dedicated to serving the primary interests of the extremely wealthy and putting the burden on the poor is not some "nefarious group of outsiders" imposing something on us against our will.

It is a bunch of American citizens who have deemed that when the going gets tough on us, the poor must continue to suffer so that the rich cannot be disturbed.

I am no longer a Christian, but even as a vile atheist that just sounds wrong. Especially when it's WE WHO ARE DOING IT.

 

[chaz345]

I love that argument - the heck with the needy, what's important is who helps the needy not that they be helped. It's not about the poor, it's about the well off garnering their brownie points to heaven.

That's not even close to the argument being made.

The issue is that those who are calling for more government aid to the poor based on Christ's teachings are the same ones who are most stronly for separation of Church and state. Those of us who are against more government aid demonstrably care more about the poor when individual giving is looked at. "These people need help I'll do what I can small as it may be" is FAR closer to what Christ taught than " It's the government's job to take care of the poor."

If you happen to believe that it's primarily the government's job to help the poor, fine, make the argument. Just do it without resorting to twisting what Christ taught.

 

[chaz345]

Why do some Americans act like the Government is some esoteric entity that exists outside of us?

I don't know what state you live in, but in most of the U.S. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

The government is us.

So the fact that we have a political party dedicated to serving the primary interests of the extremely wealthy and putting the burden on the poor is not some "nefarious group of outsiders" imposing something on us against our will.

It is a bunch of American citizens who have deemed that when the going gets tough on us, the poor must continue to suffer so that the rich cannot be disturbed.

I am no longer a Christian, but even as a vile atheist that just sounds wrong. Especially when it's WE WHO ARE DOING IT.

We are the government only in theory. The system by which our leaders are selected is broken.

And we don't have A party dedicated to serving the interests of the wealthy, we have two. Or one that has two different names. That's where the system is broken, in the fact that when it comes right down to what they actually do, actual policies and legislation, there's almost zero difference between the "two" parties.

 

[chaz345]

Just to point out the obvious, when government taxes people to fund its welfare state they take that money neither knowing nor caring how those who are being taxed care for the poor and government substitutes the wisdom of people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama in how that money is used over the wisdom of a heck of a lot of people who are far smarter and more responsible than they are.

But you're right, with the government run welfare state it ISN'T about the poor since these government programs in the final analysis do demonstrable harm to the poor, it is about politicians glorifying themselves in their attitude of 'see how much we care for the poor, we give them free health care and a minimum wage and subsidized housing and ...".

Exactly. If government programs actually succeded in causing people to come to a place of no longer needing them, then I, for one, would have far less objection. The ultimate goal of any government program should be to eliminate the need for itself. But that simply doesn't happen.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

I love that argument - the heck with the needy, what's important is who helps the needy not that they be helped. It's not about the poor, it's about the well off garnering their brownie points to heaven.

Most of us care very deeply about helping the poor. It's just that we believe there is a good way to go about it and a bad way to go about it.

As a Christian, I'm called to help those less fortunate, those in need. I'm not called to form a government to confiscate the possessions of others and redistribute to those who I deem worthy or in need.

That's not even the worst part. The worst part is that (a) most money redistributed to government programs goes to administrative costs, while most private charities have very low overheads, so most of the money goes right into the program and (b) government programs only subsidize poor people's poverty, it doesn't help them out of poverty, while most private charities are designed with accountability measures in place for both the charity and the recipient, so that the recipient is made responsible for his own recovery.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just to point out the obvious, when government taxes people to fund its welfare state they take that money neither knowing nor caring how those who are being taxed care for the poor and government substitutes the wisdom of people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama in how that money is used over the wisdom of a heck of a lot of people who are far smarter and more responsible than they are.

You mean people like John Boehner who gave out checks from the Tobacco Lobbyists on the floor of the House of Representatives while Reps were assessing how to vote on legislature related to tobacco? That kind of "responsible"? (1995)

Oh yeah, and remember Eric Cantor voted for TARP funds in 2008.

Now I'm guessing Mitch McConnell is a paragon of responsibility. Somehow from 2008 to 2009 his personal fortune rose by about $800,000 to a whopping $32,756,000. Which is pretty good. I got a 0.8% raise last year that raised my personal fortune.

But you're right, with the government run welfare state it ISN'T about the poor since these government programs in the final analysis do demonstrable harm to the poor

Any citations for that claim? You mean "hurt" the poor as in keep them from having children suffer from malnutrition? Or hurt them by providing them with a place to live? Hurt them by giving them access to healthcare? Those all sound pretty bad.

, it is about politicians glorifying themselves in their attitude of 'see how much we care for the poor, we give them free health care and a minimum wage and subsidized housing and ...".

You have a problem with the "minimum wage"? Do you currently live on the minimum wage? (And by "live" I use the term loosely).

Why do people want to peel back the advances of the Progressive Movement? I was watching a documentary on the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire recently. Earlier I was mistaken in saying they had locked the people in, when in reality they only locked 1 of the 2 doors. Sadly when the fire hit the one door that was unlocked was blocked by fire, forcing the people to go out through a window onto an overcrowded fire-escape which collapsed and killed quite a few, and an elevator which was able to ferry a few out before it had to stop running after which some people jumped or were shoved down the shaft as people tried to escape burning alive.

But generally I don't get the feeling that pre-Progressive working conditions were that great. And I suspect that the large number of republicans who find the Minimum Wage (and other progressive era advances) would probably be in the sweatshops and horrible working conditions if we were to be back in those days. So I don't understand why they talk like they would be some super-rich person of the time if they lived then. Statistically they would likely not be.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

No it's not really in any functional sense of the term. The hypocricy though is that those that argue most strongly for the idea of government aid to the poor based on Christ's commands are the ones that most vociferously resist the idea that the nation was even founded on Christian principles. The bottom line though is, regardless of what the nation was founded on, Christ's directive was to individuals, not to the government. Ironically, or hypocritically if you want, those that are accused of not caring for the poor based on their resistance to the government doing more of it actually do more individually than those who supposedly care more but who advocate that it's a government function.

I don't think it is either. I was just pointing out that so many call it that and then say we as a nation shouldn't be guided by Christian principles such as feeding the poor. I realize it is not a national Biblical mandate for nations. But I don't see why it follows that we should not just because it is not spelled out explicitly that we should, as a nation, provide help when we can do so.

 

[DaisyDay]

Most of us care very deeply about helping the poor. It's just that we believe there is a good way to go about it and a bad way to go about it.

Again, you seem to care about helping more than you care that they be helped. To some, it is the act of helping that is important rather than the result of the greatest number of poor being helped most efficiently.