What is the distinction between government and private help? Whether it's public assistance or private assistance, isn't the bottom line, the poor and disenfranchised need help? The private vs public argument is a complete red herring. For example, let's say a million people were dying from disease and it required $1 billion. Private funds only raise $500 million. Do Conservatives say, "too bad people didn't give enough" and the government should not help those other people? Is that based on Christian principles? If so, how is that congruent with universal truths of good and bad? And it's not as if the Religious Right does not believe in taxes. They certainly are willing to pay taxes for their causes.
It's easy to be generous with other people's money and harder to be generous with your own. Government donations also don't allow people to choose where their money goes. I can't tell the government that I'll only pay taxes if it goes to fight MS and not other diseases. Personal donations allow that. Also, where would you draw the line? After the government foots the bill for the other half billion dollars to fight your disease, it's not like disease is cured or poverty is over. At some point even you would say that the government can't spend all it's money on fighting this or fighting that. Does that mean you're not compassionate or charitable? No. That is, however, what you're saying to people who don't believe they should be forced to donate to a particular cause through the government. It's not the government's job to be a provider for all of its citizens. As I said before, even Jesus stated that there would never be a cure to poverty or disease and that at some point you have to give alms, do what you can to help others and then be thankful for what you have. It's easy for you to say let's pay for it with taxes because what that means is let's charge rich people more taxes because they can afford it. You're not being generous with your own money, you're doing it with someone else's. Also, as was stated by weslinder, study after study has proven that the people you are disparaging are continually the most charitable group of people.
I think this is an issue of communal values vs individual values. From what I've heard is that there is quite a bit of emphasis on communal values in Christianity for instance through the church rather than relying totally on individuals. So while you may choose to be part of a church and tithe how those donations are used aren't totally left up to you. Also in regard to taxes its not you have no say at all. This is still a representative democracy and you have a say in the priorities of what the government spends on.
At least in my church, there is a general collection which goes to help the church and to help anything the church does in the community. After that collection, there are other collections for various, specific causes which are announced to the congregation. You can choose to donate to that cause or not to donate. The choice is up to you. I'm Catholic, so this may not be how other denominations handle their collections.
I don't think anyone claims moral superiority for believing in fewer governmental social programs. If they do, they shouldn't. But conservatives believe that social welfare is generally most effective when administered at the most personal level possible. (Private better than local government better than state government better than national government.) That doesn't mean we're morally superior or more Christian, it just means that we're more observant.
You are correct in that we may not be able to solve every problem using government funding. However, we all pay taxes. Shouldn't taxes be used to pay for humanitarian causes first? Your argument about "other people's" money is factually incorrect as it's as much of my money and probably moreso than 99% of Americans. I digress. If we only had a very limited pool of resources and everyone was making huge sacrifices, then Id agree with you. We are in a land of plenty and excess. The gluttony for the ultra wealthy is neither pious nor right. You are confusing what is fair vs what is right. I myself struggle with this. I do not believe illegal immigrants should have amnesty because it's not "fair" for legal immigrants to wait and go through an arduous legal process. However, from a purely humanitarian aspect, who am I to judge these people and why should they not be able to feed their family when there is a job available? This is my weakness and prejudice. Conservatives may not believe that taxing the rich is "fair" because they "earned" it and poor people did not. That does not mean it isn't "right" for them to give up some of their wealth to feed the less fortunate when they are more than able to do so..
I somewhat agree with you but we're not talking about them giving up their money. We're talking about it being taken away from them. The rich are already plenty generous with their money (as a whole). What we're talking about here is the difference between you choosing to stop and give money to a vagrant on the street vs. someone else stopping you, taking money from your wallet and giving it to him. Which is better?
Here's a question for you. We are taxed. That is a fact. The government takes it from us to pay for a variety of programs. Why, from a public policy standpoint is not more of it directed towards helping those less fortunate? The highway construction in Alaska cost how much? Hundreds of millions of dollars? Why is this acceptable vs a "handout". Once again, is it because we don't think it's fair that we have to work for food and people who don't, shouldn't get it for free? If all agree that "X" dollars are collected, there are many projects that benefit the very few. I pay my fair share of taxes. And no I do not get to direct those tax dollars but congressmen do. That is why we elect them. These decisions are made by us as a collective whole, citizens. Why do we do have such disdain for the poor and needy and those on welfare? How are children born to those circumstances any less deserving than the son or daughter of Warren Buffet? Many so-called Christian conservatives are downright hostile at those who receive food stamps and illegal immigrants. But is that right? I honestly believe that if people truly put themselves in other people's shoes, they'd be much more understanding - which to me is much more alligned with the spirit of religion and Christianity.
Is that a tenet of your type of religion? Are you a Christian? I am puzzled. I used to be a member of the One True Church, the Catholic Church. You know the one that existed for at least a thousand years or so before heretics created various types of Protestant Churches, leading up to the very pinnacle, curent versions of Southern Protestantism that is very supportive of what world opinion considered an unjust war.
Ok, let me reprhase the question. Have any of you church goers, aside from Catholics, hea4rd the pastor/priest/cleric say clearly and outloud: " Let us pray for the Iraqis, Afghans etc. who oppose us, since they are human AND ALIVE, NOT DEAD.. I admit to being almost competely ignorant of Protestantism, having rarely even gone to one of their serrvices and never studied much about them. I have know quite a few here in Houston. I have occasionally watched their services briefly on TV, too.
PS, I am aware that the crucial Rocekts' Game 5 is now on. I am down to one working TV, DSS receiver and my wife is watching "Dancing with the Stars". I have to watch the Rockets Game 5. on TIVO after she is finished. Am I whipped? She is very tough and I hate to tangle with her unless backed into a corner. I also know about staying married after 27 years of being tothether and or married. I am now going to surf other sites as TJ, Hayes, Basso or some other online political enemy might deliberately reveal the score or end result.
The answer is yes. Don't think that what transpires in televised mega-churches is what most local churches are about.
You are a pathetic excuse for a MAN. Your wife gets to watch Dancing with the Stars while you miss the Rockets game? Tell you what, glynch, before you watch your Tivo'd Rockets game, you need to go on a hunt for your missing nutsack. That's just shameful. If my woman ever told me that she's watching some stupid reality show which prevents me from watching a game, then I'm heading straight to the titter to replace her. Period. End of story. and by the way, the Rockets lost big tonight.
I am not a Christian. But I am curious about those of you that say your churches do pray for the Iraqis (living or dead). Do they pray for their well being, or do they pray that they will convert and share your theological views? I went to a Christening at a Sacred Heart Catholic Church downtown on Sunday and I have never heard such divisive religious talk. Anyone who was Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or other would have been extremley offended. I know there is no way that Father Troy prays for anyone's well being at all if they are not Catholic. By the end of the service I felt like punching him.
Jorge, you have much to learn about women, my son. Have you ever been married.? I have also just learned not to assume you can control all variables. Real son just called from Austin before I read your untruthful post to let me know he was glad the Rockets won. He interrupted by TIVO viewing experience.
They pray for all people of all denominations and pray for their well being. We don't pray that they will convert.
Also in my defense regarding my assertiveness or whatever, I would like to inform you that testosterone levels fall with age. Unless, of course you take testosterone or perhaps various steroids to hit the ball futher or impress women with big pecs etc. Jorge, I could understand if you need to resort to these tactics to get female attention. Jorge you could try going to church to meet women. I understand some churches are filled with women of your political persuasion. But back to the question. If you are not a churchgoer, like I'm not, better to just admit it or tell us about your experience when perhaps you did go. If your last visit to a church service was before the Iraq War II. perhaps you still went to some sort of Protestant church during Iraq War I and can comment on the question based on that.
You say that their fate was determined while they were living? So my question is, Does a person that does a good deed (building a church/ educating people/ feeding the hungry) get rewarded continuously for his good deed and the effects of his good deeds after his death? For example I mentioned Building a church, lets say John built a church, and thousands of people come to the church and are doing better things as a result of that church being there. Now John dies, and people are still doing great things as a result of John's good deed. Does John get rewarded for those ongoing deeds? I believe your answer to my question will help me formulate my next question about praying for the dead. ( I agree with you on the part in italics)
