The American Spectator : What Would Jesus Cut?

Text Size

What Would Jesus Cut?

By Mark Tooley on 3.4.11 @ 6:07AM

But, for starters, would He have regarded federal budgets as "moral documents"?

After any successful election for Republicans, the Religious Left immediately becomes alarmed about supposedly massive federal budget "cuts," i.e. some reductions in budget increases, for some social welfare programs. In the Religious Left's ultimate vision of the Kingdom of God, the federal government spends unlimited sums on the nation's every supposed social need, regardless of result, while spending nothing on national defense, and only increasing taxes.

In 1981, responding to President Reagan's budget "cuts," the Religious Left endorsed a huge "Solidarity Day" protest march in Washington, D.C. to deplore the "transfer of billions of dollars from the social needs of people to the production of massive new weapons and strategic defense systems." One United Methodist bishop explained: "For us to take out of the mouths of the hungry and the poor and the oppressed the funds that will build bombs and bullets and airplanes seems to be terribly incongruous with our understanding and the quality of life in the world in which we live."

Responding to the new Republican Congress in 1995, the National Council of Churches paid a solidarity visit to President Clinton's Oval Office to "pray" that he would be "strong for the task" for resisting Republican budget "cuts." Evangelical Left activists Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, among others, "prayed" in the Capitol Rotunda so as to invite arrest in protest against proposed Congressional "cuts." As they were led away to their perfunctory arrest, they cited the Prophet Isaiah: "Woe to the legislators of infamous laws… who cheat the poor among my people of their rights."

Facing the new crisis of ostensible Republican-inspired federal budget "cuts," Jim Wallis now has launched his "What Would Jesus Cut?" campaign, with the usual insistence that federal government budgets are "moral documents." For this audience, "moral" means only military spending can ever be reduced. Wallis ally Brian McLaren, guru of the Emergent Church movement, has supportively bewailed the "narrow, one-dimensional, reactionary" tidal wave that is "sweeping today's Republican party like a tsunami of tea." McLaren touted President Eisenhower's often misunderstood warnings against the "military industrial complex," without acknowledging that Ike favored strategic "massive retaliation" partly because nuclear weapons were cheaper than conventional forces. In their policy counsel, Wallis-style religious leftists usually avoid mentioning their own absolute pacifism, which logically means they oppose all national defense.

McLaren at least admitted that Democrats "buy votes and loyalty from poor people and want-to-help-poor people through entitlements and promises of a stronger economic safety net." He thinks this vote buying is "more honorable… since poor people need help more than rich folks do," while Republicans "buy votes and loyalty from rich people and want-to-be-rich people through tax cuts and promises of more security through an ever-bigger military." Of course the "want-to-be-rich" presumably includes some poor people who aspire for a better future beyond permanent dependence on government entitlements. But helping the poor escape their poverty rarely interests the Religious Left, which intuits that enhanced government power entails endless expansion of dependence on government.

Popular Evangelical Left speaker and self-professed "urban monastic" Shane Claiborne also blogged supportively for Wallis's "What Would Jesus Cut?" campaign. Claiborne, an Anabaptist, is author of Jesus for President, a 2008 book describing government as the biblical Whore of Babylon. Oddly, many neo-Anabaptists ferociously denounce government as demonic, almost sounding Libertarian, while still demanding more and more government for politically correct social programs. "We simply want to make sure the poorest and most vulnerable are cared for ... as Jesus said, 'when you do it unto the least of these you do it unto me,"" Claiborne explained. He cited anti-malaria and anti-AIDS programs needing protection from "cuts," though such proposals represent a tiny fraction of any reductions. The huge entitlement welfare state is the Religious Left's primary cherished temple.

Naturally, Claiborne targeted the military as uniquely worthy of cuts, though it comprises only about 20 percent of the federal budget. "Military money could make some good schools," he typically suggested. "Let's hope the politicians who claim to follow the Christ who carried good news for the poor will ask this little question as the debate goes on." Claiborne quoted Martin Luther King saying, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Probably Claiborne doesn't know that "programs of social uplift" have out expensed defense for 40 years, starting with the Nixon Administration.

Claiborne also cited the budget analysis of a less distinguished personage, leftist ice cream mogul Ben Cohen of "Ben and Jerry's," pointing to a world where most "would rather see ice cream dropped from planes rather than bombs." Should anyone, religious or otherwise, taker seriously Claiborne's utopian ice cream fantasy? But the metaphorical appeal for mass ice cream distribution aptly incarnates the Religious Left's delusions about federal budget priorities, and about the world.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 3.4.11 @ 6:17AM

In point of fact the lefties shriek against ice cream as well, alternately screaming that children are malnourished and starving, and that they are morbidly obese and dying of a surfeit of good and tasty food.

Meanwhile, said lefties are shoving expensive and calorie-rich goodies into their faces 24/7 and expensing them to their employers.

What would Jesus cut? Everything. Jesus told INDIVIDUALS to look after their neighbours, and leave Caesars work (ie defending the borders and enforcing the law) to Caesar. There is no record of Jesus ever striding down K Street shouting Hey Hey! Ho Ho! about anything, least of all advocating that we force our neighbours to feed His sheep. Jesus was a do-it-yourself kind of guy.

Ryan| 3.4.11 @ 8:38AM

Ummm...that last statement is a bit fast and loose, so you probably need to be a bit more exact. Christ did tell us to take care of the poor. He made no governmental recommendation other than rendering unto Ceasar.

It was Paul, btw, that brought the "power of the sword" argument out.

Sheila| 3.4.11 @ 12:40PM

It was also Paul who said those that don't work, don't eat.

Excellent comment, Appleby. Scripture is God's word intended for individual learning and spiritual nourishment. It is not a "governing" document or a primer on social policy. Christianity is individual salvation, not social justice.

blackknights1802| 3.4.11 @ 5:04PM

Or collective salvation.

David T| 3.4.11 @ 10:15AM

Actually, Jesus told the CHURCH to look after the poor. One big reason why we have a government that spends trillions on "helping the poor" is because Christians have not paid their tithe to the Church. The "tithe," by definition, is 10% of our income. We give, on average, an anemic 2%-3%.

Pelligrino| 3.4.11 @ 10:27AM

Despite what might or might not be tithed, churches typically do a far, far better job of aiding the poor, operating shelters, doing meals/soup kitchens, low level jobs training, English language instruction, and disaster aid.

Individuals, private organizations, and, yes, churches, are the better vehicles and conduits for deeds and resources to aid the needy -- wherever they might be.

Government should not be involved. All any government leader needs to do is acurately highlight and laud the charities & individuals that are doing al the great work.

IMKessel| 3.4.11 @ 10:49AM

Tithing, giving up ten percent, included the costs of the government. If Uncle Sam capped all taxes at 10%, people could, and probably would, give millions more to churches, synagogues, other houses of worship and charity in general.

Excessive taxing spreads the misery, not the wealth.

David T| 3.4.11 @ 11:15AM

True, when Israel was a theocracy, the tithe included the costs of government administration. But Israel clamored for a king to rule over them. And Samuel the Prophet told them the king would conscript their young men and raise their taxes and make life generally more onerous because of his demands. See 1 Sam 8-10-18.

Vic| 3.4.11 @ 10:03PM

Start at 8-6

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD.
8:7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.

fundamentalist| 3.4.11 @ 2:35PM

Actually, there was very little government in the nation that God originally created. You had the priesthood, which acted as teachers of the law, civil and religious. And you had judges who supported themselves and resolved disputes. That's all. There was no legislature or executive branch nor a standing army. Soldiers in war paid their own way.

Since Jesus is God, Jesus designed the government of the original Israeli nation. Charity was voluntary then and is throughout the OT and NT.

So it's safe to assume that since Jesus designed only one government ever, he might think that design was pretty important. The first thing Jesus would cut is most of our current government.

Alan Brooks| 3.5.11 @ 12:11AM

Ryan,
Appleby is a harridan, she is hopeless-- you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
Appleby cares more about racing cars than people. Jesus would tell her she is on the road to perdition.

KyMouse| 3.4.11 @ 7:44AM

Well said, Appleby.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 is also instructive. It includes these statements: "We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it...If a man will not work, he shall not eat..."

Paul was talking about the conduct of Jewish and gentile believers in Jesus, but his point has wider application as well. We have the responsibility (and the privilege) of taking care of people who genuinely need charitable assistance, but we should not allow people to take unfair advantage of others' generosity -- or taxpayer-funded government programs. That is not good stewardship, and it does not encourage them to become better people.

Alan Brooks| 3.6.11 @ 11:33AM

Then tell your rich grandparents not to get so much from the state.
You actually think anyone today doesn't know what is going on? you are now only wasting your own time with this.

RT| 3.4.11 @ 7:55AM

Charity is necessarily performed with one's own resources, given voluntarily. To perform "good" deeds with others' resources, taken from them involuntarily, is not charity; it is theft.

mteach| 3.4.11 @ 8:55AM

Amen to RT and KyMouse

Alan Brooks| 3.6.11 @ 11:35AM

But you want govt to give thousands of dollars a month to wealthy kin? rather dodgy of you!

The Bishop| 3.4.11 @ 8:00AM

It's interesting that a St. Louis TV station has uncovered wide-spread usage of Missouri EBT cards (now used instead of food stamps to avoid stigmatizing) in California, Alaska, and Hawaii. It's fascinating to me that my wife and I have not yet made a journey to any of those states but the indigent (the least of these) have been able to do so. Wallis, Campolo, McLaren, et.al. are pietistic morons. I believe Jesus also said, "By their fruits you will know them." Those are definitely fruits.

Pelligrino| 3.5.11 @ 1:09AM

Or....just asking...might it be that someone in the state welfare assistance office is selling these EBT cards? A bit of illegal activity? Odd that they cannot confine useage of the EBT (I've never seen one) system to just the local/state area.

Ryan| 3.4.11 @ 8:40AM

Again, it's the abandoning the Gospel message - Christ's death, burial, and resurrection for sin - that the Christian left is abandoning.

Stan Redmond| 3.4.11 @ 10:01AM

From what I recall of reading the bible Jesus did not break in to houses and steal gold and silver from people to redistribute to the poor. I also don't remember reading about Jesus buying a multi-million dollar yacht and parking it in the next state over to avoid paying taxes.

The Bruce| 3.6.11 @ 11:36PM

Correct. In fact, when He created the loaves and fishes, he didn't render them unto Ceaser to redistribute.

He (himself) decided how to best distribute them.

Old Timer| 3.9.11 @ 10:19PM

AMEN!! The body of Christ is the Church. Explicit
instructions were given to help those in need that
were in fact needy, and widows who had no other family to help them, which boils down to the fact that the children were to care for them.

talkradio55| 3.4.11 @ 10:12AM

Leave it to the Left to actively misrepresent the Gospel in order to advance Communism. Someone actually told me this week that Jesus was a Marxist and lived in a commune.

Of course, the bigger problem is that the Left only wants to abolish defense (a constitutional function of the federal government) and use that money to prop up the unconstitutional welfare state. As Walter Williams states, "Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft."

The whole premise of the Left is that it is justified to be morally depraved, to lie, cheat, steal, rape, pillage, plunder, destroy, and kill people. Period.

Leo W| 3.4.11 @ 10:18AM

What would Jesus do? He'd chase these money-changers who would use religion for their own greedy ends out of the temple at the end of a lash... AGAIN.

Pelligrino| 3.4.11 @ 10:46AM

Others above have stated it well in different ways.

Here's my simple thinking (I'm fundamentally just a simple person.)

Good works and deeds are to be freely given. It is indeed Christian duty but not to be forced, coerced. For then the acts of charity and deeds are not voluntary. Whether time, money, materials, a car....anything freely given from the heart.

Isn't that what Jesus wants us to do?

And at the individual, local level, church level there's so much more accountability.

It would be very interesting to see a comparison between what Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse does or what CBN does versus some government agency.

Christian adoption agency vs. government one?

Pelligrino| 3.5.11 @ 1:24AM

My view: Our Lord would wish A LOT cut from the current US national and our many state budgets.

I am a fan of the book of Proverbs. 31 chapters. Perfect for reading one chapter a day and applying it to everyday life. (Proverbs has lots to say about work.)

Here's one from Genesis 3:19 "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground." (Sounds like a life of work to me.)

Paul's word to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Sounds very much like a solid work-ethic (with no excuses) for all able bodied.

Not as much charity needed when everyone (everyone able) is pulling his own weight. And most of us can.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.4.11 @ 10:47AM

W.W.G.C.? (What would Goldwater cut?)

Al Adab| 3.4.11 @ 11:39AM

Read Conscience of a Conservative for the list. Remember also that many agencies now spending billions to no effect did not exist in 1964. Only the Great Society and later Nixon brought them into being.

Louis Jenkins| 3.4.11 @ 11:09AM

Mana, ice cream, what's the difference? Drop enough ice cream and city would be paralyzed. Charity should begin at home, and in the church. It should not be a tax levied against the working man. The only time we'll hear Christianity get a approval from the Obamatrons is for this type of work, and there will be less cash in the pocket.

ricky l. cox| 3.4.11 @ 11:11AM

Jesus didn't advocate tithing to a church.

He didn't even advocate a church.

"Build me no temple or tabernacle..."

David T| 3.4.11 @ 11:26AM

Interesting. Then I wonder what Jesus meant when he said, "...upon this rock I will build my church..."? (Matthew 16:18)

ricky l. cox| 3.4.11 @ 12:08PM

Obviously, it doesn't mean what it is taken to mean today because Jesus never got around to it.

I could offer some theories on what it means. But first you would have to tell me whether it was actually said by Jesus, or put in his mouth when the Roman Church and Constantine rewrote Matthew to correspond to Church doctrinal counsels. They employed scribes called "correctores" to accomplish the task of taking what they voted for, and incorporating it into scriptural text.

A rule of thumb is to disregard anything that offers authority to the church-guys. Like, say, vicarious atonement, original sin, baptism, communion, hell, purgatory, limbo, judgement, - basically anything that asserts a church to be needed.

The church came to it's modern form by defeating the opponents, with the help of Emperor Constantine, during the Arian Controversy. The teaching passed from Jesus was that our soul came to earth already divine. The church and Constantine didn't like that, and saw the immense power of inserting themselves in the gap - "you need us to connect you to the divine".

So assume that Jesus' church was whatever he offered the Samarian woman at the well, right on the dirt where they stood, with no crucifixion, no blood, no atonement for the soul created sick.

He offered her enlightenment. He "told" her something. He understood unity with God, and shared it with her. He didn't reach in his pocket and give her the well of everlasting life. It was already there.

That's Jesus' "church".

David T| 3.4.11 @ 12:52PM

So Jesus never established his church because he died before he got around to it? And Constantine/Rome rewrote Matthew to say what they wanted it to say instead of what it was meant to say, which was that sin, judgment, hell, etc., are all basically superfluous? And that all we need to do is disregard anything that smacks of ecclesial authority and go with the unadulterated words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman at the well, which are the words of enlightenment from Jesus? Tell me, how do you know what you say is true? Why should I believe you and not what 2000 years of church teaching says? You might want to reassess your beliefs because you appear to be seriously deceived.

ricky l. cox| 3.10.11 @ 12:20PM

Yes. That is correct.

Disregard everything the "Church" has said for 2000 years. That's a good start. They are like Jesus described the authorities of religion during his time "hiding the keys to knowledge. They are like a dog in a stable. They refuse to eat, and refuse to let the cattle eat."

They have disregarded some of it themselves.

Clint| 3.6.11 @ 6:10AM

Wrong ricky.

"Correctories are the text-forms of the Latin Vulgate resulting from the critical emendation ( a correction made to a text in the belief that the author's original wording has been wrongly altered, e.g. by scribal error, printer's misreading, or the intervention of censorship. Unlike an amendment, which creates a fresh wording, an emendation aims to restore a lost original ) as practiced during the course of the thirteenth century. Owing to the carelessness of transcribers, the conjectural corrections of critics, the insertion of glosses and paraphrases, and especially to the preference for readings found in the earlier Latin versions, the text of St. Jerome was corrupted at an early date. About 550 Cassiodorus made an attempt at restoring the purity of the Latin text. Charlemagne entrusted the same labour to Alcuin, who presented his royal patron with a corrected copy in 801."

ricky l. cox| 3.10.11 @ 12:28PM

I didn't say "correctories". I said "correctores". These are the scribes employed to change scripture to fit council doctrine. (Textual critic Eberhard Nestle is one of dozens of citations on this)

One instance is the verses inserted to support the Trinity. They were quoted dozens of times in the second century from earlier texts, and contain no reference to "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

It was made up as an attempt to convince people that a human being could be both human and God, humans and God having attributes that are mutually exclusive. (omniscience)

This was a necissity for blending with the Greco-Roman ideas of gods siring children with humans. It was a competitive tactic.

ricky l. cox| 3.4.11 @ 12:08PM

Obviously, it doesn't mean what it is taken to mean today because Jesus never got around to it.

So assume that Jesus' church was whatever he offered the Samarian woman at the well, right on the dirt where they stood, with no crucifixion, no blood, no atonement for the soul created sick.

That's Jesus' "church".

Al Adab| 3.4.11 @ 12:24PM

If Jesus never got around to it during that particular 40 days, I'll go with what Simon/Peter said on Pentecost. Since Jesus had himself baptised and shared the Last Supper (Seder) instituting what we now call communion, I'll keep that too. Infant baptism and other doctrines might be arguable, but alas, facts are stubbnorn things.

Sheila| 3.4.11 @ 12:48PM

I think you're a bit confused, "ricky;" your "Jesus" sounds much more like Buddha to me. Try reading the Bible - you know; Jesus in His own words. Jesus offered no one "enlightenment" but rather the word of God and personal salvation. His crucifixion and atonement for the sin of sick souls was part of God's plan and essential to reconcile a fallen and broken world to its holy and sinless creator. Don't bother replying; I'm not about to debate theology with a New Ager. Go gaze into your crystals and dip into your self-contained "well of everlasting life" from the "divine" within you.

ricky l. cox| 3.10.11 @ 12:38PM

So Jesus never offered anyone enlightenment?
I will not bother to refute that, as it is ridiculous on it's face.

But I will say that God does not create souls "sick". A system of someone else atoning for my deficiencies and actions through human sacrifice is a deeply immoral and evil concept.

This conception of God and man hands the case over to the atheist on a silver platter. Then he will be glad to tell you about God and man, and it will be a more powerful argument than you make.

Storage Steve| 3.4.11 @ 1:29PM

My understanding of this verse is that Jesus told Simon he would be called Peter (which means rock) and that Peter would evangalize therefore growing His church. The church Jesus is talking about is not a physical building but believers. Just as Jesus taught that the church is like a body that the believers all have roles in making it work just as a hand by itself cannot do anything. Yet to become part of the church you must be a believer and therefore expected to be charitable to those in need (emphasis on need) not to have your possesions taken from you. That is why the early church was to have shared with each other according to their needs (not wants).

David W| 3.4.11 @ 11:35AM

Here is a point.
The government takes money from the taxpayers – who aren’t happy about it. The government, through the intervention of Congress and the “religious” left give that money to help the poor (not necessarily improve their situation, just to keep them going).

If Jesus/God were keeping a scorecard, who will garner favor? The unwilling taxpayers are not helping the poor – the government has to take the money from them. The “religious” left and Democratic Congress people would be the ones who supposedly “shine” before God. That may be why – to assuage their guilty conscience, the left wants to look good by screwing other people (of course, I don’t believe these leftists will gain any credit because of this, but in their minds they are the holier than thou people who are better than we are and thus are destined to be in Heaven).

Al Adab| 3.4.11 @ 11:36AM

"My kingdom is not of this world." Christians understand that a personal obligation is not the same as institutionalizing "compassion" through government agencies or programs. In fact, it can be argued that such institutional agencies represent "buck passing" on the part of nominal followers. By relying on government as the agency of charity, they dissociate themselves from the individual obligation Christ ordered. We would be wise to understand that Charity under compulsion is not Charity at all.

NaturalBorn Texican| 3.4.11 @ 11:38AM

The "church" IS the people....not a building or an organization....but, THE PEOPLE. And it is upon faith that the church is "built".

David T| 3.4.11 @ 2:33PM

Yes, the Church is "people," but it's also an organization. It is visible, hierarchical, sacramental, and sacerdotal, as well as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic," as the Apostles' Creed says. The Church is built upon the "Rock" of St. Peter, who was given the Keys of the Kingdom (see Isaiah 22:15). In other words, St. Peter was the first "prime minister" of the Church, Christ's Kingdom.

Franco| 3.4.11 @ 12:26PM

"sweeping today's Republican party like a tsunami of tea."

I once drank a tsunami of tea. The result was a balloon of a bladder which I emptied of yoo-rhine in a torrential typhoon.

Though I'd share.

Clint| 3.6.11 @ 3:38AM

Sounds like you're full of Demo-Crap, Sport.

Vic| 3.6.11 @ 6:09PM

Put down the crack pipe dude! What you thought was tea must have been kool-aid!

Petronius| 3.4.11 @ 12:28PM

Government is about governance: not support. Christ did not come to us to govern. He told us, "My Kingdom is not of this world."
The conflicts driven by clerics and their acolytes who are possessed of a sandbox mentality are not only economically illiterate but misinterpret and misunderstand His parables on the making and keeping of agreements. For Jim Wallis and the lefties it's not about faith, lack of faith, or even hypocritical attitudes on the part of anyone. For them, it's about nailing their betters to the cross.

Thom| 3.4.11 @ 12:59PM

I can’t remember a single instance where Christ advocated stealing from one person to help out the lot of another… not once. The center piece of Marxism, which predates his stamp of approval by thousands of years of recorded history, is this concept that an individual is property of another for the good of the “state”. What the religious left preaches is Marxism wrapped in scripture that does not exist. The question is not what Jesus would cut but to what extent he would go to improve the lot of one people at the expense of others? I think we know that answer without qualification.

Forcibly taking from one person to give to another (for their vote) is stealing and corruption combined. Only Marxists employ the end justifies the means methods to defend their corrupt ideal of false compassion. As I remember when Christ lent a hand he actually solved a problem not subsidized into forever.

With over 60% of my income going to government each year the idea that the “church” is going to get 10% of what is left ranks up there with a manned mission to mars. When the “church” of Christ gets in bed with government you get the same outcome as you get when business does. IE, the left is Government Church.

Tony in Central PA| 3.4.11 @ 1:20PM

" Woe to the legislators of infamous laws ..." . I guess this wouldn't apply to laws promoting abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, restrictions of religious liberty, creation of government dependency, redefining marriage into anything and everything, etc. ?

Bonnie| 3.4.11 @ 2:16PM

While Jesus taught those who were listening to Him the importance of caring for the poor, he never said to do so through their government. Separation of church and state, which is so touted by many on the left, seems to be forgotten when it comes to this issue. Turning the federal gov't into the caretakers of the poor is not what God calls for. Turning US, individuals, into His hands and feet for the poor IS.

Dee See| 3.4.11 @ 10:05PM

---Remembering, Christ himself flew into
fury at the money-lenders in the temple.

First, no doubt, he would, without doubt, END the tax free
unaccountable status of the ultra-rich 'charitable'
(i.e. EUGENICS driven) foundations and NGO's.

Especially the like of Rockefeller/Ford which
have, for at least half a century and more,
have been sedulously funding the infiltration
of our entire religious establishment with Arminian Heresies etc. via their deadly
'Council of Churches'.

Ahhh, and then there's the matter of their,
and the RIIA and Tavistock Institute, contriving,
funding, launching and guiding the dope and sex
cultures, first in the 1920's (which fizzled)
----and then from the 60's onward, genuine
culture NOW all but completely aborted.

"Come out from among them.
Do NOT partake of their sin."
-----where did we read that?

Charles Stevens| 3.5.11 @ 6:34AM

Equality is Theft.

Irish22| 3.5.11 @ 9:26AM

If you haven't ever read Walter E Williams' "Socialism Is Evil" do it now.

What Would Jesus Do?

What DID Jesus Do?

When given the opportunity to turn stones into loaves, thereby feeding the masses, Jesus declined. I wish our Congress-people were as wise!

Oldefarte| 3.5.11 @ 10:23AM

Mark's excellent thesis zeroes in on the essential question of government: should it spend taxpayers' money on GUNS or WELFARE [not butter]? The Constitution signifies the former, and not the latter [since there was no thought of welfare in colonial times]. The excessive governmental spending on military items is a fact and should rightfully be substantially reduced to that which is truly needed and essential [do we need super-sonic military hardware when our currect enemy-threat is millions of religious extremists whose only weapons are roadside bombs?]. Alternatively, is governmental welfare warranted and should it be ALMOST entirely eliminated? My answer is YES! Given that it is extremely humane and necessary to properly/adequately care for the elderly-poor, should it also be a requirement of society to also care for [through government] those who are too lazy and too stupid to care for themselves? Is it my fault that they are too stupid/lazy, and do I therefore have a moral obligation to care for them? No, absolutely not! EVERYONE was/is born with FREE WILL, and are EQUAL AT BIRTH. What differentuates them from each other is their individual life CHOICES. If they chose wisely, work hard, they will survive in life, and at their individual death, will be judged by THE ULTIMATE JUDGE as to their eternal direction either NORTH or SOUTH. Granted some are born into poverty, but ther now exists overly adequate governmental support programs to go toward leveling the human playing field for them. If they do not then take proper advantage of these programs to enable themselves to survive/thrive in life, that is THEIR fault, NOT MINE! The liberals' desire for more and more governmental welfare is an attempt to MAKE EXCUSES for these lazy/stupid indigents who have not made their proper choices and taken advantage of the currently overabundance of governmental assistance/welfare programs in order to better themselves. Instead of demanding higher and higher income tax payments from income producers to support their desired ever-increasing welfare programs, they should simply [if desired] REACH INTO THEIR OWN PERSONAL WALLETS AND CHARITABLE GIVE UP THEIR OWN MONEY FOR SAME. And that, folks, IS WHAT JESUS WOULD ADVISE AND DEMAND!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Ashley| 3.5.11 @ 11:38AM

Unfortunately fir them, the nanny state the religious Left love so much will also prohibit them from dropping their ice-cream bombs on humanity, in the name of saving them from the evil of obescity.

J.C.Eaton| 3.5.11 @ 12:43PM

Frankly, I think the little bracelets with the WWJD are a pompous, silly conceit. For openers, to hypothesize what the Savior would DO in every tiny incident of life is a fool's errand. He is the Son of God for Heaven's sake; He's got MORE data than we do! A man or woman can only look to the tools Jesus left behind and adjust fire accordingly. It's dangerous to put words[or acts] into the mouth of Jesus, ask Pilate.As a writer above opined, correctly I'd trow:He sure as hell wouldn't fund abortion clinics and take the money to do it at the point of a gun.

marshcope| 3.5.11 @ 9:05PM

According to a progressive writing in my local free newspaper Jesus would have approved of funding PBS and NPR.

marshcope| 3.5.11 @ 9:07PM

Left out a word while typing; I should have said a "progressive preacher."

Dee See| 3.5.11 @ 11:51PM

THE ARMINIAN HERESY

i.e. God Loves Everyone (---wrong!)

YOU are made in God's image
(wrong again! --ONLY Adam was made
in God's image)

and that 'fave' capstone
trip 'The doctrine of benevolent works'.

Mankind, left to its own devices, is utterly
incapable of any such thing that stands
and answers to eternity.

The REALITY is TOTAL DEPRAVITY
-only saved by Divine Grace dispensed
by the Sovereign Will of GOD ALMIGHTY.

ALLL else is deadly, soul damning heresy.

BEWARE--------------

Ryan| 3.7.11 @ 8:36AM

We're all in His image - otherwise the illustration of rendering unto Ceasar is meaningless.

The understanding was that whatever bears the image of a person belongs to that person. In this instance... a coin.

As we are to render ourselves unto God.

And, yes, I'm a reformed Baptist.

Rob| 3.6.11 @ 8:49AM

Hmm..now I am not God and make no pretentions for speaking for him..

But I suspect God has an issue with killing innocent, unborn, human life.

So my very humble suggestion is that Jesus would first start with Planned Parenthood and go from there,

MikeS| 3.6.11 @ 9:32AM

Hello Mr. Tooley,

There appears to be at least two concerns here (likely others out there) in your premise; what would Jesus cut and say? Those you presented contention, the allocation of military funding, verses helping society’s less fortunate to destitute needs. It would be easier if we could step back to a time when things wouldn’t have to sound so grave, because things get hard when trying to solidify God’s will with today’s civil tolerance.

To begin with, since the qualifier for all those that name the name of Christ to fashion our approach towards some form of satisfaction is in place and obvious, it cannot be taken too lightly which I think has happened, the cohesive context of God’s will, that is to say, all of It. Basically, I suspect overzealousness of our liberty in Christ gone aloof for such things as to occur in question by all of our diverse involvement or non-involvement.

Like it, or leave it, for those that do name the name of Christ then, I have no apprehension of conscience, (mindful of a willingness to submit to humility and others) in saying He would immediately scrap a tax-funded system of benevolence to any and all portions of mankind from any who claim any part to be His. Immediately thereafter turn and say to those clinging to the purest of motives, that you have from the very inception done this out of fear, and that a specific one. Not one for lack of doing good works, but for lack of being the good soldier to conduit His revealed will.

If as with many of life’s concerns the Lord’s will is to be sought, how is it there will never be enough isolation of context? For when they quote for instance, “do unto the least of these”, they do so to the degree to imperil the counter admonition of “not of compulsion” (II Cor. 9:7) for fear of not wanting to wait and do act to separate from those God loves, “the cheerful giver”. Personally, I am in favor of the maximum allowance that is contrary, a fully tax-supported implementation of services to funnel “giver” contributions, NOT the “grudger” pillage, would be in the Christian’s best interest. This is the judgment that should have begun and been continued from the house of God right on through.

I fear that for some, the act of giving that a self-perceived swept heart finds enjoyable, energizing the tax strong arm to his cherished cup, denies himself the realities of fuller sensitivity of God’s will. Take for instance another of His instructions which is to the extreme:

From the Father in heaven and what He expects of our benevolence is laid out for the widow’s needs and the burden He allows to be imposed upon the Church for them. Such is applicable here for yet another perspective but of the same issue of expected cares. They are quite minimal and not exactly a fancy plate to supply the widow with, but frugal. Again, if there are needs, and there are, they are largely fashioned of willfulness, not compulsion. It is within us to do good measures I would hope, but NEVER have compassion stifled with force.

Yet if this first seems too hard, and not in the clarity we see as beneficial, how can we even begin to deal with providing military advances for our own house? Yes, that may be of more importance to our well-being, but speaks same of the need to deliver ourselves out of unnecessary diverseness verses what makes us unique with growth in Him.

For those Christians who scoff at the sight of all such magnitude of sacred implications, being well beyond all shortcomings, are themselves headed towards and hard at work at their own good old fashioned “overthrow of faith”. Their only claim to fame is elevating the throne of the whore over the recorded co-workers of Christ, including the epistles and their esteemed offices (Rev.18:20), and their only benevolence is giving her a place of haven with them.

Delmar Jackson| 3.6.11 @ 9:43AM

The LEADERS of both the religous right AND left have been cheerleaders for the massive immigration that is taking place for the last 40 years. Immigration is a tax on the working poor here now and has driven wages down for decades. The left likes immigration for new voters and the right loves the cheap labor.
What would jesus cut?

Hopefully he would cut out the bulls**t.
the only people that favor massive immigration are those that benefit from it and pass all the social,economic and environmental costs onto the communities. some benfit money, others like ethnic advocates benefit power as the native born population is ethnically cleanesed by diversity. religous leaders benfit from getting to wear a moral crown for favoring the "other' while dismissing their own.
Poll after poll shows religous leaders at odds with their members on immigration, what would jesus do.
Indeed!

Charles Stevens| 3.6.11 @ 6:49PM

Three groups are always required in the progressive paradigm:

1) Bad lifestyle habits and lack of personal responsibility are perpetually subsidized for one group.
2) Responsibilities for the subsidy are shifted by theft onto the backs of a second (productive) group.
3) A cut for the subsidy transfer is skimmed off by a third (elitist) group in order to enhance its wealth and power.

Thus progressivism is a suicide cult... it will never wake up to the inevitable end result of the above paradigm:

Group #2 is sucked dry and killed off, followed closely thereafter by the eradication of group #3 by group #1, after which group #1 self-eradicates because its members have neither the personal nor external resources to save themselves.

Only the fevered fantasies of the left could theorize that this exemplifies the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pontificating Popey| 3.6.11 @ 8:52PM

I say Jesus would cut Jim Wallis off.

The Bruce| 3.6.11 @ 11:44PM

The thing that disturbs me most about both the right-wing and left-wing arguments quoting Jesus as justification for their economic policy is that both are basically propping up the policy of the State over Jesus.

Sound familiar? Think communism. Leave God and Jesus out of politics, please. It's a bit nauseating to thing that either of you denigrate either of them to forward petty, earthly political ideals.

Bob T| 3.7.11 @ 10:39AM

When one reads the Old and New Testaments always keep in mind that it is the individual not the state which God is speaking to.

" 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.' "
Lev. 23:22

God did not say to reap once and then bring the gleaning and the crops from the edges into the Govt. storehouse for it to distribute. No. The individual was to help the poor and the poor were to do what they could to help themselves. No stay at home gov't welfare here.

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matt. 19:21

Here, again, individual. This is true philanthropy which is an individual giving what is theirs and giving to another of their own choosing in the amount of their own choosing; not the false philanthropy of the Left which will take what they want, give to whom they choose, in the amount also chosen by them.

The Justice which God speaks of is in the courts of law, thus the the blindfold, scales and sword of Lady Justice.

In this case also Left has distorted true Biblical teaching because now Lady Justice is constantly looking at the parties before her and placing weights of Race, gender, income, etc. to the scales she holds.

The Bruce| 3.10.11 @ 12:36AM

What would Jesus cut? I don't know, could one of you ask Him??? I await the answer. I don't have a direct line to the Almighty.

I help where I think the most help is needed. Imagine that... choice. Apparently others are awaiting operating instructions.

IzeHavitt| 3.8.11 @ 12:15AM

The so-called Religious Left are false prophets. Why? Because they are components of the so-called Democratic Party, of which everything that is said is a lie, or a component of The Big Lie. Once and again, the oldest trick in The Book is to mix the truth with a lie and thus, form a very powerful psychological weapon. Don't fall for it, America.

Tom| 3.19.11 @ 10:39AM

"Prayed" in quotation marks? Were you there to see if they were really praying?

I have an idea--Let's cut all socially spent money and double our military. Let's attack Canada. Why? Because we can. God never liked Canada anyway. Even the religious ones are the "Religious Left" (aka leprosy to humanity) People are starving in our American streets? I guess that's just too bad for them. Better yet, let's arrest them for being poor--at least we'll catch them before they rob someone or a store. Then, in our quest for world domination, we can force everyone to convert to Right Wing Christianity...that is the only pure form anyway. We ARE the new Israel after all. Oh, and that Jesus guy...he was an old hippie anyway who didn't mean half of what he said.

(Sarcasm abounds for anyone who doesn't understand)