[besson3c]

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we have to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it"

Agree? Disagree?

[turtle777]

False premise.

This nation does NOT want to be a Christian nation, so all that follows is moot.

Plus, what we call "poor" today most definitely does NOT meet the standard that was called poor during Jesus' time.
To most of today's poor, Jesus (through Paul) would say "If anyone doesn't want to work, he shouldn't eat." (2. Thess. 3:10)

-t

[besson3c]

It isn't a false premise.

Our laws dictates that we aren't a Christian nation, but that doesn't mean that we aren't in actual practice, one mustn't conflate the two.

Your second point is valid though, although it is possible to work and still be poor (e.g. anyone relying on wages from working at McDonalds). The biblical teachings are pretty absolute when it comes to helping the poor, aren't they? IOW, they aren't relative to anything.

[andi*pandi]

I believe the only reason that quote says we're a Christian nation, is that so many people insist we are... (there is no such thing as separation of church and state, in god we trust, founding fathers, blah blah blah...)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I believe the only reason that quote says we're a Christian nation, is that so many people insist we are... (there is no such thing as separation of church and state, in god we trust, founding fathers, blah blah blah...)

Yeah, I think that we're probably an agnostic nation overall, although that depends on whether we go by self-identification data or actual habits, I guess?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Plus, what we call "poor" today most definitely does NOT meet the standard that was called poor during Jesus' time.
To most of today's poor, Jesus (through Paul) would say "If anyone doesn't want to work, he shouldn't eat." (2. Thess. 3:10)

-t

One of the main guiding principles of socialism and communism is "He who does not work shall not eat".

Jesus is a socialist.

Inequality: Constitutional principles | The Economist

He who does not work, neither shall he eat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[subego]

I'm not concerned about the very poor.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not concerned about the very poor.

Leave politics out of this, we don't want this thread to end up in the PWL.

Oh, wait, nevermind

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we have to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it"

Agree? Disagree?

Disagree.

This is a nation comprised of mostly self-proclaimed Christians. The ones that donate most to charity and serve the needy en masse are already conservatives generally and Christians specifically. These are the ones who say; "What can I do to help?" and do it every day in the spirit of giving.

Those who would advocate taking from others and giving to the poor are saying; "What will you do to help?", give less to charity statistically, and are in fact perpetuating theft under the guise of the poor they have no intention of helping in the spirit of building a larger dependency class that will continue to vote them into power.

Agree or Disagree?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not concerned about the very poor...

... we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine.

Not quite the powerful leftist PSA when a little honesty is employed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Disagree.

This is a nation comprised of mostly self-proclaimed Christians. The ones that donate most to charity and serve the needy en masse are already conservatives generally and Christians specifically. These are the ones who say; "What can I do to help?" and do it every day in the spirit of giving.

Those who would advocate taking from others and giving to the poor are saying; "What will you do to help?", give less to charity statistically, and are in fact perpetuating theft under the guise of the poor they have no intention of helping in the spirit of building a larger dependency class that will continue to vote them into power.

Agree or Disagree?

There is no way any of us can agree or disagree with that. Just as there are self proclaimed Christians out there that either live up or don't live up to the tenants of their faith, there are Democrats and Republicans that do the same (although with their values and actions).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine.

Not quite the powerful leftist PSA when a little honesty is employed.

Agreed, but with Romney's opponents getting digs in about his massive wealth, these statements about the poor don't demonstrate a good mastery of modern political strategery.

I'm not criticizing him for this though, I think they also demonstrate sincerity and a refusal to pander, so I like that

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no way any of us can agree or disagree with that.

Right, so why did you ask?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine.

Not quite the powerful leftist PSA when a little honesty is employed.

Context ruins cheap laffs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, so why did you ask?

It was intended as more of a general philosophical/attitude/behavior sort of issue than the left/right sort of spin you applied to it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It was intended as more of a general philosophical/attitude/behavior sort of issue than the left/right sort of spin you applied to it.

No, the statement was uttered by Colbert and was intended as a hit to rightwing Christian hypocrisy. C'mon besson, not again. Don't try to pretend it was an honest, open-ended question you were curious about others' answers to. My response goes right to the heart of Colbert's stupidity both theologically and politically.

[besson3c]

There are left wing Christians too ebuddy. The right wing does not own Christianity.

Control your emotions.

[besson3c]

Besides, if it is true that the conservatives as a whole donate more, this is still not a terribly meaningful stat without looking at social class. I'd expect the incredibly wealthy to donate more, and I'd expect the incredibly wealthy to be more conservative than liberal since the conservative party is friendlier to the maximizing of their wealth.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

and I'd expect the incredibly wealthy to be more conservative than liberal since the conservative party is friendlier to the maximizing of their wealth.

Really ?

Because last time I checked a lot of the ultra-rich are pretty left-leaning.

Bill and Melinda Gates $53 billion, Supported Obama, Democrats
Warren Buffett $47 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat
Eli Broad $5.9 billion, Supported Obama, Democrats Madfloridian's Journal - Eli Broad: "with election of Obama and his appointment of Duncan, the stars are aligned"
John Doerr, $1.7 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat Obama appoints John Doerr to economic advisory board | VentureBeat
Gerry Lenfest, Supported Obama, Sestak, Democrat
Gerry Lenfest - $15,392 in Political Contributions for 2010
John Morgridge, $1.6 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat
NEWSMEAT ▷ John Morgridge's Federal Campaign Contribution Report
Paul Allen $13.5 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat
Paul Allen - $94,875 in Political Contributions for 2010
Laura and John Arnold, $4 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat
John Arnold - $104,252 in Political Contributions for 2008
Michael Bloomberg, $18 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat
Michele Chan, $5 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat
Barry Diller, $1.2 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat -
Barry Diller Says He’ll Vote for Barack Obama -- Daily Intel

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are left wing Christians too ebuddy. The right wing does not own Christianity.

No, but Colbert certainly owns the left-wing or rather, it owns him. I know exactly what he's talking about and so do you.

Control your emotions.

Quit playing stupid.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Besides, if it is true that the conservatives as a whole donate more, this is still not a terribly meaningful stat without looking at social class. I'd expect the incredibly wealthy to donate more, and I'd expect the incredibly wealthy to be more conservative than liberal since the conservative party is friendlier to the maximizing of their wealth.

What if I were to cite you some statistics that show the most philanthropic are conservatives generally, Christians specifically, and on average earn less than their liberal counterparts?

[screener]

Make sure they're an honest representation of the truth.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if I were to cite you some statistics that show the most philanthropic are conservatives generally, Christians specifically, and on average earn less than their liberal counterparts?

Who would their liberal counterparts be?

[besson3c]

Ebuddy, please wait until after the Super Bowl is over to respond, thanks.

Also, no C3PO references.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who would their liberal counterparts be?

abcnews-Who Gives and Who Doesn't?

Conservative vs Liberal
To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more? It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election. Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money." And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

[andi*pandi]

The wealthy don't carry cash to drop in a bucket, they likely donate via check by mail.

Heck, I don't carry cash to drop in a bucket.

Do the religious only donate to religious charities or their own church, or do they support other causes that come without strings?

[besson3c]

Yeah. The conclusion might be accurate, but there are a number of variables unaccounted for with this experiment.

ebuddy: how come this experiment was not conceived to produce the results the funders wanted it to produce just like all of the global warming experiments? What makes this different?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah. The conclusion might be accurate, but there are a number of variables unaccounted for with this experiment.

I'm listening. Which are those ?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How come this experiment was not conceived to produce the results the funders wanted it to produce just like all of the global warming experiments? What makes this different?

Maybe the facts were so strong that you couldn't spin it that way ?

-t

[Chongo]

Here's a link to the afore mentioned book. You can read most of it in the preview.
Amazon.com: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't and Why It Matters (9780465008216): Arthur C. Brooks: Books

Who Really Cares
Brooks's first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.[4] Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.

Brooks adopts what he calls a "polemic"[1] tone when offering recommendations, urging that philanthropic giving not be crowded out by government programs and that giving must be cultivated in families and communities. He admits being surprised by his conclusion: "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."[4]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm listening. Which are those ?

It doesn't appear that you are, cause andi*pandi listed one.

[Chongo]

10 Ways the Obama Administration Has Alienated Catholics | CatholicVote.org

9. Federal “Catholics Need Not Apply” Policies. It was bad enough when local businesses barred Catholics from certain jobs in the early 20th century. Now the White House has put “Catholics Need Not Apply” signs up in two key places:

Last Spring, Health and Human Services issued a rule that bars the Church from helping refugee and human trafficking victims who are kids separated from their parents. The regulation says to work with them you have to be willing to perform abortions on them.

The State Department’s USAID bars groups from feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and caring for the sick overseas unless they promise to give them condoms, too. This makes it impossible for Catholics to participate.

[Waragainstsleep]

Of course, the liberals vote to provide lots of money and services for the poor but the conservatives tend to vote not to.

Also, isn't there a good chance that the liberals in SF would tend not to donate their money to a christian organisation with well-publicised beliefs against homosexuality? In San Franciso? You really don't see a problem with this 'experiment'?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Of course, the liberals vote to provide lots of money and services for the poor but the conservatives tend to vote not to.

Also, isn't there a good chance that the liberals in SF would tend not to donate their money to a christian organisation with well-publicised beliefs against homosexuality? In San Franciso? You really don't see a problem with this 'experiment'?

There are a gazillion variables in addition to this:

- numbness of being asked for charitable donations in an urban environment (most people don't have the financial resources to donate to everything in existence)

- all of the obvious stuff: placement, sample size, demographics, timing, presentation, etc.

- religious affiliations

- experimental bias/corruption (the very same sort of bias that ebuddy was asserting is behind global warming studies he doesn't agree with)

etc.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

10 Ways the Obama Administration Has Alienated Catholics | CatholicVote.org

If you're an anti-abortion Catholic who voted for Obama, I don't think he's going to miss those 5 votes.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

One of the main guiding principles of socialism and communism is "He who does not work shall not eat".

Jesus is a socialist.

You do realize that "If anyone doesn't want to work, he shouldn't eat."
and...
"He who does not work shall not eat"
Are 2 completely different phrases don't you?

The people in USA who call themselves 'poor' aren't really poor they just would rather not work and collect the free welfare/unemployment/food-stamps that is easily available. We are already doing more than "taking care of poor people in the US"; Most "poor" people live a higher standard of living than me.

I got into an argument with a jobless democrat the other day... He said, and I'm not making this up, "People want me to work for n***** wages, I'm not going to work for ****** wages! I'm too educated for that!"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The people in USA who call themselves 'poor' aren't really poor they just would rather not work and collect the free welfare/unemployment/food-stamps that is easily available. We are already doing more than "taking care of poor people in the US"; Most "poor" people live a higher standard of living than me.

That's quite the generalization.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

although it is possible to work and still be poor (e.g. anyone relying on wages from working at McDonalds). The biblical teachings are pretty absolute when it comes to helping the poor, aren't they? IOW, they aren't relative to anything.

Mexicans come here and often consider anything over $15/day a real score; but fast food workers who make ~$60/day are poor?

I lived on $25/day when I was younger and don't remember putting myself in the category of poor once I got up to that level.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's quite the generalization.

So, generalization is good.

I'm actually a very empathetic person. I would have no problem with the government to continue extorting the same amount of money from us and give it to the same "poor" people; Just get some work from them in return. Hire everyone that's leeching off the system for all I care.
They could: pick up trash, clean up streets, repair pot holes, build dams, do general maintenance on public utilities, plant trees in parks, clean up water ways, become handy-men, child day care for people who work, be community organizers...
or
go around trimming trees near power lines to prevent forest fires,
document the population decline of blue birds due to besson's cats,

I dunno, they need to do something, anything.

And for the record I don't think Jesus advocated forcing people to help poor (by government force), he wanted it to be voluntary.

[Waragainstsleep]

There are certainly large numbers of people in the west with very stupid ideas about what constitutes being poor, hardship, poverty etc. When this recession started to kick in a couple of years back there was people on the news moaning they could only afford to take their 3 overindulged brats on one holiday this year. FFS, I haven't been on holiday in almost four years and its not like I broke the bank then (~£250)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Hire everyone that's leeching off the system for all I care.
They could: pick up trash, clean up streets, repair pot holes, build dams, do general maintenance on public utilities, plant trees in parks, clean up water ways, become handy-men, child day care for people who work, be community organizers...
or
go around trimming trees near power lines to prevent forest fires,
document the population decline of blue birds due to besson's cats,

Uhm, and what about those people that already DO these kind of jobs ? Do they have to compete ?

I say, make all those poor unemployed people politicians. Then they can get paid to do nothing productive, talk all day w/o consequences, lie if need be, and make a honest living killing on the backs of the 1%.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

So, generalization is good.

Although often not terribly accurate enough to be terribly useful, as I'd say applies here.

And for the record I don't think Jesus advocated forcing people to help poor (by government force), he wanted it to be voluntary.

Maybe, but you'd have to tell that to literal bible interpreters.

I get it that you feel that our welfare system is unfair. It could very well be, but I just think the best way to look at it is with a more sober look where we consider these liabilities from a more fiscal/economic than emotional perspective, taking into account the costs of inaction as well as action.

I'm not advocating for anything in particular, I just can't stand silly rhetoric and emotional arguments. I'm not saying that yours was overly emotional, but obviously these sorts of conversations tend to head into this territory very quickly.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I get it that you feel that our welfare system is unfair.

Ah now I might see where you're coming from.. maybe... It's not the fairness of it I'm concerned with. I'm concerned because the social entitlement programs are unsustainable. As long as something doesn't effect me too much I don't worry about it, but I think the welfare induced inflationary depression thats coming is going to effect me in a terrifying horrific way.

I just think the best way to look at it is with a more sober look where we consider these liabilities from a more fiscal/economic than emotional perspective, taking into account the costs of inaction as well as action.

This is what I've done, maybe you don't agree or have come to a different conclusion than I have; but to me the scariest scenario is to continue spending at the rate we are, and if we look where most the spending goes, it's to free handout programs. I don't see any success in these programs over the years. They seem to be getting worse and worse. It makes sense to put all eyes and scrutiny on the highest cost programs first.

I know you might think we need to research this more but as far as I'm concerned the government went bankrupt over 10 years ago, yet kept spending out of control. They had over 30 years (more depending on how you look at it) to research this with a sober look; it's now time to act, time is absolutely up. Its better to cut checks to the free handout system now and put a few people in depression for a few years than put the whole nation in depression. Nobody's gong to starve unless the whole nation is in depression... That is the worse scenario. At this point the government needs to run on Scylla, to avoid Charybdis

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Ah now I might see where you're coming from.. maybe... It's not the fairness of it I'm concerned with. I'm concerned because the social entitlement programs are unsustainable. As long as something doesn't effect me too much I don't worry about it, but I think the welfare induced inflationary depression thats coming is going to effect me in a terrifying horrific way.


This is what I've done, maybe you don't agree or have come to a different conclusion than I have; but to me the scariest scenario is to continue spending at the rate we are, and if we look where most the spending goes, it's to free handout programs. I don't see any success in these programs over the years. They seem to be getting worse and worse. It makes sense to put all eyes and scrutiny on the highest cost programs first.

I know you might think we need to research this more but as far as I'm concerned the government went bankrupt over 10 years ago, yet kept spending out of control. They had over 30 years (more depending on how you look at it) to research this with a sober look; it's now time to act, time is absolutely up. Its better to cut checks to the free handout system now and put a few people in depression for a few years than put the whole nation in depression. Nobody's gong to starve unless the whole nation is in depression... That is the worse scenario. At this point the government needs to run on Scylla, to avoid Charybdis

I'm fine with the premise of cutting back, my only questions are to what extent, and what are the costs of doing this? Every political decision of this magnitude has stuff to both gain and lose. For instance, if we pull back on welfare too far to the point where it cuts into people with physical disabilities that have far fewer work prospects, how does this impact Medicare/Medicaid? This is just a hypothetical scenario.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Talking about cutting back how about the 57billion they want to spend on welfare for the citizens of other countries? Assuming of course that the countries actually spend it in the best interest of their citizens.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Talking about cutting back how about the 57billion they want to spend on welfare for the citizens of other countries? Assuming of course that the countries actually spend it in the best interest of their citizens.

If theory, if done right this can help build allies and support so that our war addiction doesn't cost as much. I'm not so sure how often this theory holds true though.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If theory, if done right this can help build allies and support so that our war addiction doesn't cost as much. I'm not so sure how often this theory holds true though.

Or, let's cut the bribes to our allies AND our war addiction.

-t

[ironknee]

christians are so dumb....

an invisible man in the sky!

hicks

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

christians are so dumb....

an invisible man in the sky!

hicks

I think you need a time out.

[Big Mac]

I don't know, besson. Compassion for the poor, yes. Charity for the poor, sure. But (Socialized) forced redistribution of wealth for the poor? I don't think so. A conservative Christian pointed out that, according to the gospels, when Mary used precious oil on Jesus and was rebuked (by Judas?) for not selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor instead, Jesus supposedly rebuked him, saying that the poor would always be around, but he wouldn't be. Though the commentator who pointed it out drew a much kinder conclusion, the implication is clear: The poor don't mean much when Jesus is in town, so you should treat him well while he's around. Once's he's gone you can care more about the poor if you so desire. That's just one instance. You can show many examples where the gospel Jesus was surprisingly un-"Jesus-like" toward the poor and non-Jews (Jesus-like meaning the pop culture peace and love passive Jesus that many conceive of when they think of the figure).

Popular culture has given people the wrongheaded idea that the gospel Jesus was some kind of endlessly merciful, endlessly charitable chap. That's not what the Christian texts make him out to be. I'm not denying that the gospels have him teach lofty ideals about the sick/poor/charity too, but the message was definitely mixed. It's an ancillary point, but as a result of the pop culture Jesus, many Christians think their religion teaches that one can do all the evil in the world, profess to belief in Jesus, and get their blissful reward in heaven, whereas decent people (religious and non-religious) who don't believe in Jesus but do mostly good their whole lives will not be so rewarded or even eternally punished. But the gospels don't teach that simply professing to believe in Jesus is enough to guarantee anything. In fact, the gospels say one can even perform open miracles as a Christian and still be rejected by Jesus as a false believer.

The gospels also have Jesus say things like sell your possessions if you need to in order to buy a sword - helping the poor apparently wasn't a high priority for him at least in that period. Then there's the famous "Render to Ceaser" line. Roman tax collectors and the Roman state more generally definitely weren't popular back then, but even if they were, the gospel Jesus clearly differentiates between the power of the State and one's individual duties toward one's fellow.

In addition, the notion of charity in religion is pretty much always predicated on voluntary giving, which is very different from taxation. Taxation is not charity, not in my religion and not in Christianity, AFAIK. Taxation is permitted, certainly, and by the biblical standard some small taxes were directed to sharing with the "have-nots," but taxation is still not the same as individual charitable giving. Moreover, I don't think anyone two thousand years ago or even 100 years ago could have envisioned the modern Social Welfare State, let alone confiscating more than half of one's income for the poor and then conflating it with charity.

But I digress, I don't want to derail this thread toward the same partisan religious, destructive track we've been on a number of times before in the PWL.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The wealthy don't carry cash to drop in a bucket, they likely donate via check by mail.

Heck, I don't carry cash to drop in a bucket.

Do the religious only donate to religious charities or their own church, or do they support other causes that come without strings?

Read the study, it goes well beyond a Salvation Army bucket and even includes donating blood. Churches throughout the US also maintain food pantries, care for the poor, the infirm, the elderly, prisoners, etc... and there are no strings attached.