Family Research Council Attacks Evangelical and Catholic Leaders

"What would Jesus Cut?" is a really stupid question when you think about it.

Unlimited resources for good. Deciding between two evils is not His game plan. Jesus wouldn't cut anything. But He might tell you to cut something, as in "cut it off."

Does there have to be antithesis between support for the poor through private and government means? Yes, we should personally reach out to alleviate suffering whenever we can and contribute to charitable causes to which we our attention and our hearts are drawn. But many just and deserving causes and individuals would likely be left out in the cold if they did not have the PR or the popularity of others and had to compete for my limited resources. That seems unjust to me. I'm not naive enough to think there is no competition for allocation of funds by the government, or that all programs (or even most!) are wisely, competently and effectively meeting the needs of the truly "deserving"; that is not the point I'm making. It's just that as an individual I can have a more extensive reach for good if I contribute through public means as well. The context of Jesus' teaching that we should render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God what is God's, is indeed taxes. Although Jesus is the Son of God, and not subject to earthly authority, He paid His taxes to set an example for us. As an American citizen, one of the people of and for whom our government is supposed to exist, it is my desire that tax revenue be used to help others, as well as for providing for infrastructure, services, safety, etc., in ways that I as an individual cannot do.

Let me quote you the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

We the people now that sounds socialistic with its stating people rather than individuals.
Establish Justice...Hmm is it Just for a minimum wage worker to pay more in taxes than major corporation with record profits. Nope.
Promote General Welfare. ... Welfare is that a dirty word.

Looks like the Tea Party didn't get that portion of the Constitution. Of course it is only the founding measure. They continue to ignore it and twists its words.

Micah weeps as God requires Mercy of Justice.

I wish that the leadership of the Church treated Catholic politicians who introduce or legislate things that hurt the poor the same way that it does those who go against the Church's teaching on abortion.

I don't think the issue is whether there should be both individual efforts and government programs to help the poor, the question is when do you stop with the government programs. If you read the letter signed by the 6000 pastors you will see that they call for "fiscal responsibility" and they don't push to continue government programs at their current level. There is a general understanding among pators that we have over spent the past couple years and it has hurt, not benefited, the poor.The question isn't even whether to cut but how to cut in a way that builds a hedge of protection around the poor.

The argument for government support for the poor among us resists proof-texting, but that doesn't make it unbiblical. Look at Psalm 72, and what it calls upon the king to do - and then remember that in our political system, the govt of, by and for the people takes the king's place. We need to read the scriptures to see what God's vision for Israel, and then the church, is: we are to be makers of "shalom" - of wholeness and peace, wherever we can make it. I can't at all understand the ideology of those who believe that the best way for the church to touch the world with Christ's love is to undermine the safety net we all depend on, so that in fear and desperation they will have to turn to a church which will never have the means to care for everyone in need. Unfortunately, I think this mindset is really built on a subconscious desire NOT to have to help "some people."

"Unfortunately, I think this mindset is really built on a subconscious desire NOT to have to help "some people.""

What is your evidence for thinking this? It's a pretty damning statement of people you disagree with so I hope you don't make it lightly.

Blue Deacon.

You clearly have no contact with other countries or how they are run.

EVERYONE competes for a piece of the pie ALL THE TIME.
In other countries, they do it via rent-seeking - looking for government handouts.

This is among the few countries that doesn't rent-seek.
This is also why we are leading the world out of poverty.

You simply have no understanding of how much the world has changed in the last 200 years.

I advise two things:

1) Watch this BBC video:
http://www.youtube.com/v/jbkSR...

2) Read this pamphlet:
http://bridegroompress.com/zen...

Then try reading a decent book on economics.
I recommend Thomas Sowell or Walter E. Williams.

This advertisement works because the United States was based on freedom , not the modern socialistic views of worker rights and such . Christianity is all about giving up our indivividual freedom , but not too sure about giving up that freedom to a secular government. The Soviet Union gained much support originally because it appealed to the poor, then the government became the mind and spirtual mindset for the people , eventually disregarding the people. Freedom includes the ability to not be giving , not to be Godly . If you give up the ability to disregard our Lord , the relationship is counterfeit. I support freedom and helping the poor . Can't we do both ?

http://news.yahoo.com/frc-acti...

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/p...

The ad script follows:

Commentator: "Right now Congress is considering increasing America's debt. But debt hurts everyone, especially the poor."

Pastor J.C. Church, Victory in Truth Ministries (for the Ohio ad); Pastor Gary French, Life Church (for the Kentucky ad): "There's a group of well-meaning but misguided ministers who believe that the government is responsible for meeting the needs of the poor, calling proposed budget cuts immoral. But Jesus didn't instruct the government of his day to take the rich young ruler's property and redistribute it to the poor. He asked the ruler to sell his possessions and help the poor. Charity is an individual choice, not a government mandate."

Bishop Harry Jackson, International Communion of Evangelical Churches: "Multiplied billions in government spending has not eradicated poverty. In fact, runaway government spending and increasing debt have actually crippled our economy and now churches have even less to spend to meet the needs of the poor, so that we might tangibly show them the love of Christ."

Commentator: "Please join millions of churchgoers in telling Congress to start living within its means, just like we have to. That is the moral choice."

The radio ad will run today, tomorrow and Monday, August 1. The radio ad can be heard online here:

Ohio - http://downloads.frcaction.org...

So, yes, today's poor are poor. No question.

But there are fewer poor today, in percentage of population terms, and in absolute terms, even the poor are doing better than they had in centuries past.

This is thankfully true. However, it does not change the equation, it merely reduces the entropy that, if not avoided, will inevitably reduce the social mechanisms to chaos ~ as it has done with every society formed by humanity since time began. And America is on the brink of that bottomless pit of fire we call "the dustbin of history" because we have been fighting that entropy, which increases it, rather than avoiding it.

"Poor" is always a relative term.

The virtually inevitable result of the division of labor and cooperative enterprise in a private enterprise open market economic order is that the society sustained by that economic order prospers and becomes affluent beyond survival and subsistence needs. People engaged in this overproduction, whether as independently competitive entrepreneurs taking their production into the public market, or engaged in cooperative enterprise elsewhere in the stream of production from natural resources to the marketplace, increasingly have more to spend on comfort-level goods and services. All costs gradually increase as the producers increase their sharing of the fruits of the commonly-produced wealth, including the costs of subsistence goods and services. The cost of living thus rises generally, and people unable to increase the return on their productive labors through profit-sharing cannot keep up, while those who, for whatever reason, are not integrated into the economic machinery, or suffer a loss of their integration into it, are increasingly unable to benefit from it.

This produces "poor people." They are "poor" relative to those able to "keep up" with the increasing affluence of the society. This is not, in and of itself, a problem ~ material ambition is not evenly distributed, some are satisfied with less while some demand more, in terms of comfort levels. As long as people are able to meet their subsistence needs and realize incremental progress in reaching their comfort levels, "the poor" do not impede the growth of affluence and do not contribute to the entropy that can collapse the economic pyramid into rubble and fatal debris.

But this is not what happens. The affluent forget the poor ~ the disfranchised, the denigrated, the deserted, the depleted, and the defeated ~ and poverty becomes destitution and desperation. Entrepreneurial talent is wasted and lost, growth stagnates, business models become focused on predation more than production, survival demands replace ambition and competition becomes feral and darwinian, and entropy increases from all of these factors until the entire house of cards comes tumbling down on those living in it.

Which is where America is today.

Matters have progressed to the point that wealth ~ at the top ~ is a means of survival. Predatory competition demands that any concentration of wealth be first devoted to defensive strength in the battles for corporate supremacy. Where before, spending on "the general welfare" ~ the subsistence needs of all of the people, maintenance of an able, ready, and ambitious labor force, development and facilitation of entrepreneurial talent ~ could have been trivial but was over-trivialized into inadequacy, today such spending is perceived to be at the expense of necessary defensive capacity. And where before, social "safety net" spending marginally prevented poverty from reaching penury, destitution and desperation, and the costs of poverty ~ crimes of ambition, ameliorization of homelessness, medical intervention occasioned by the absence of prevention, transfer payments to sustain spending levels to keep businesses operational, generational poverty, and so on ~ gradually increased over what it would have cost to avoid those costs altogether, today we're witnessing a quantum increase in crimes of survival, protection of rental incomes through regulatory prohibition of shelters, medical expense occasioned by escapist use of intoxicants and recreational drugs, and black marketing that is nearly the equal of taxable marketing but produces no revenue. These are all symptoms of terminal neglect of "the general welfare" that is the first and primary foundational and continuing purpose of a human society ~ symptoms of the final, fatal stages of this social malady.

Surely an essential means of promoting the general welfare is facilitation of enterprise. The voice of business is ~ and should be ~ one to be heard. But it must be heard from a larger perspective of understanding the dynamics of wealth and poverty, and understanding the entropy of those dynamics that must be avoided, and understanding that avoidance can readily be a trivial expense for those most interested, in real terms, in avoiding the inevitable result that America is clearly approaching.

I'm not here to watch the train wreck./i>

You'll see it much better from where you are.

I believe that all I have comes ultimately from God. My employment is also from Him. All I have is not really mine, but held in stewardship for God, and if He directs me to give to my brother in need, even after taxes there will be enough for my brother and for myself. God's math is different from what we learn in school. He multiplies according to His will and provides as we trust in Him, often in unforeseen ways. Think of the account of the boy who offered His loaves and fishes to Jesus. He was willing to give all that he had, even if it meant he would go hungry. But he surely did not miss out on lunch that day, and thousands of others ate their fill as well. In fact, there was plenty to spare. It has been my own experience as well that when I have given "beyond what I can afford" my needs have still been met. I don't need to withhold help from someone God directs me to help. I don't have to worry that God will abandon me if I'm "too generous." Paying taxes is surely already figured into God's economy, and when I'm faithful in even small ways He will provide more so that I can give more. His grace is unlimited.

BlueDeacon,

Gazorblade repeated liberal lies.
Everything he said is controverted by the historical facts.

In case you're wondering, I have a graduate degree in modern European history, my emphasis was on World War II Germany, and I teach college level courses on this subject.

Gazorblade lied.

I like Tony Campolo's comeback to all this.

"Should the church take care of the poor and vulnerable? Absolutely. So let's take a look at your church budget then, what part of it goes to people outside your walls . . .

"So, if the church won't do it," he adds, "can we blame God for using the government?"

And please, let us not forget that Bill Clinton ended "welfare as we (once) knew it." A lot of the arguments I hear forget that this country already made a drastic change in the welfare system, in the name of "personal responsibility." We can't argue as if nothing has changed since the anti-poverty programs of the 60's.

Bill Richards -- If you are in the 50% tax bracket, you are not going to get much sympathy. You do have choices to avoid paying taxes, like living in a country that has no official tax system. But you might not like the living conditions. Or you could take a job that doesn't pay enough to be taxed. Or you could significantly reduces your taxes with charitable donations which would not even have to be to help all those freeloaders you despise. You could even set up your own foundation.
Making snarky remarks and personal insults here will not induce people here to take your ideas seriously. But I do understand that your philosophy is basically "every man for himself". You might be happier consorting with people on an Ayn Rand fanclub site.

I know... How do we change it?

At what point in American politics do they brainwash the politicians to stop caring about what they believe and only seek to benefit themselves? At what point do they fall under the hypnotism of political power? In my opinion, those that are meant to represent our ideologies (whether we are conservative or liberal) are downright the worst at truly representing those ideologies. But we, the base, continue to support their rhetoric as though it were something more than rhetoric. But it American politics, it seems to be just words.

Jesus did not say that the poor should suffer only that they would be with us always. By the way, when Jesus said this, he was the poorest member of his society. God incarnate was poor, and we are called to look after the poor.

Second, you characteristic of the poor is but a very small fraction (less than one percent), most are what is called the working poor. I agree with you that we have to wake up, and when your average janitor (a member of the working poor) pays MORE taxes than GE and their record profits, clearly the system is been gamed for the wealthy. The irony is that we had to bail out the super rich and there Hedge funds in the form of TARP money and they don't even what to give up their private jet perk is telling. Romans 13 says to0 pay your taxes and your fair share, and again the wealthy don't. They want to eat have their cake and eat it too.

Mennonites turned away from the Truth, which is why you don't understand this issue.

I get the idea that Sodom was a case of attempted homosexual rape from Scripture. Wikipedia actually has a nice summary: Genesis 19:4 (RSV):
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them)."I use the term sodomite because that's the traditional term for individuals who want to have sex with someone of the same sex as themselves.

Ezekiel points out that not only were the Sodomites uncharitable, they "did detestable things before me." i.e., sodomy, homosexual activity, buggery, etc.

Jude agrees: "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Kansasmennonite, you are a heterophobe. You are unwilling to recognize the biological fact that heterosexuality is normal, while sodomy is not. You are unwilling to recognize the Scriptural fact that heterosexuality is normal while sodomy is not.
But again, this is not a surprise. When people are not in union with the teachings of the Catholic Church, they are ignorant of certain aspects of reality.

I believe the over-riding principle Jesus teaches about here is taking care of the poor, widow and orphans... how we do that? Whether its through the government or not as long as its done. I don't think the government is very efficient at it, but they are doing something. The system of safety net programs is in desperate need of reform, but in the mean time we cannot just cut funding, because it is a burden that will be placed on the backs of those who are unable to carry it. Why is there no discussion of what can be done to reform the system without placing that burden on the poor themselves? And for the church to take-over their mandate to care for the poor, they do not need the government to stop assisting the poor, maybe they do it in reverse and help the poor to the point that it alleviates the governments need to care for the poor.

Greg Dill: "The primary role of government according to Romans 13 is to protect its citizens and uphold the laws."

Read with a particular filter, you might make this conclusion, but it is certainly open for debate. The text seems to say more literally that its role is to reward the doing of good. I don't see indication that there is limitation of what is "good" to just protecting citizens or upholding its laws. Other interpretations see Romans 13 as giving a broader mandate for government involvement in care for all its citizens.

I'm not really up for a deep discussion of Romans 13 right now; I just am noting that your unsupported claim of the meaning of Romans 13 is just that, an unsupported claim.

Here is the conundrum we face.

Right-wingers (including both fundamentalist right-wingers and secular right-wingers) are against two things. First, they are against a government that seeks to help the poor, the working class, and those in need. Second, they are against a democratic government that is genuinely of the people, by the people, for the people.

Right-wingers fear 'mobocracy' and many will claim the US government isn't a democracy at all. It's true that after being undermined by anti-democratic policies the US government has become less democratic, but that is because some people don't want it to be democratic. Right-wing libertarians take it even further in believing the rich don't need government and the poor don't deserve government, thus claiming government is evil in interfering with the supposed hardworking rich and in coddling the supposed lazy poor.

Right-wingers claim the private sector would take care of all problems if the government just got out of the way. The failure of this hypothesis is that it's contradictory to the evidence. There has never been a society with a private sector that took care of all social problems. In the US prior to the Progressive Era, the private sector failed to deal with these moral issues. The Populists and Progressives were responding to this failure. If the private sector had solved these moral issues, then there never would have arisen a need for government intervention.

So, why do right-wingers think their beliefs will work now even though it has never worked before in any society?

TIO deceitfully wrote: "You haven't answered my question, how do you know the color of my skin?"

Go and troll on another site please. You and all your minions.

I think a more appropriate and effective critique of the Family Research Council's ads would include biblical references since that is what the ads in question used to present their case.

If your aim was to disprove what the Family Research Council asserts, I think your attempt falls victim to the appeals to the people and appeals to authority fallacies. This may not have been your aim, of course.

Mike Sw said: "most innocent through the "right" of abortion"

Why don't we all work on reducing abortion through contraception? Why do some "true" churches declare contractption sin and also declare abortion sin. Doesn't make sense.