-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Special Report
Is Endless Government Debt Irreligious?
Rendering to the welfare state shouldn’t be the only option available to American believers.
Religious defenders of the Welfare and Entitlement State seem ambivalent but concerned about the final debt deal between President and Congress. A “Circle of Protection” led by Sojourners activist Jim Wallis and including the National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches, U.S. Catholic Conference, and the Salvation Army had met with Obama, U.S. Senator Majority Harry Reid, and U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, urging higher taxes and rejecting any limits on social spending growth.
“We met with the president and Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and all of them fought to defend low-income people as we asked them to do,” Wallis recently reported, while bemoaning that Republican leaders claimed to care about low income people but failed to uphold this principle. And he complained: “The most glaring problem with the deal is that it doesn’t, at this point, include revenues.”
Oddly, Wallis, who is a pacifist, failed to rejoice over potentially sharp limits on future U.S. military spending. He did celebrate that his Circle of Protection proved that “poor people do have a constituency looking out for them.” And he promised that the “faith community will be watching to see if the most vulnerable are being protected or savaged for the financial sins of the rest of us.”
Why representatives of the Catholic bishops and U.S. evangelicals chose to collaborate in Wallis’s public relations gambit to mobilize religious voices behind Obama and against Congressional Republicans is a mystery. At least the official statement from the U.S. Catholic Conference was more modest than Wallis’s apocalyptic and insistent rhetoric, admitting: “We write as pastors and teachers, not experts or partisans.”
A statement from the board of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) this Spring actually prioritized debt reduction, declaring, “By failing to live within its means, the nation has enjoyed unsustainable prosperity at the expense of future generations.” And it warned: “Persistent deficit spending, whether at the personal or national level, violates biblical teaching and leads to bondage.” But the NAE representative who met with Obama seemed to echo Wallis’ prioritization of welfare spending and praised Obama in an interview with Roll Call afterwards: “I talked about the importance of fiscal responsibility, which the president articulated very clearly, so we’re with him on that.”
The National Council of Churches out-radicalized even Jim Wallis, boasting about arrests of its officials in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in protest against budget “cuts.” “Our elected officials are protecting corporations and wealthy individuals while shredding the safety net for millions of the most vulnerable people in our nation and abroad,” hyperventilated the NCC’s former president after his arrest. Another arrested NCC official explained, “We are citizens first and foremost of the realm of God,” When steps Congress is taking contradicts our call as followers of Jesus Christ, we must take action.” Interestingly, Wallis, despite many arrests in his colorful past, declined to join the civil disobedience this time.
None of the Circle of Protection members seemed to question that any limits on federal social spending or entitlements could be anything other than an assault on the needy. Do these programs work, or does the federal Welfare State instead entrap the poor and perpetuate poverty? Would limiting taxes and the size of government not help the poor and all Americans if it fuels economic growth? And wouldn’t endless debt and higher taxes, in producing further economic stagnation, not harm the poor most of all?
Most federal government spending goes to “entitlement” programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and no long-term solution to debt and government growth is possible without their reform. Shouldn’t religious leaders concerned about the nation’s health, if they enter the political fray, speak to this urgent need? Of course, hyperbolic voices like Jim Wallis portray most government spending as military related or claim that government revenues are eviscerated by special tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jet owners. The military accounts for about 25 percent of the federal budget, a percentage that will decline. And whatever else their merit, corporate tax breaks likely produce more productive jobs than do federal transfer payments.
Overall, federal spending per household has nearly tripled over the last 45 years. Shouldn’t religious and moral leaders be concerned that the federal government’s massive expansion is impeding not only economic growth but also the ability of churches and private charities to function fully in fidelity to their faith? Or do some of them see the Welfare and Entitlement State as ultimately a replacement for religion and charity? Maybe one of the most threatening corruptions of Big Government is its usurpation of the spiritual authority that rightfully belongs to religious institutions.
Responding to the failure of many church officials to question the morality and plausibility of an endlessly expanding federal government is a new coalition called “Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE).” It portrays endlessly expanding government and debt as potentially ruinous. “Compassion and charity for ‘the least of these’ is an essential expression of our faith, flowing from a heart inclined towards God,” their inaugural statement declared. “And just as the love of God frees us for a more abundant life, so our charity must go beyond mere material provision to meet the deeper needs of the poor.”
CASE warned that “to suggest that Matthew 25 — or any commandment concerning Christian charity — can be met through wealth redistribution is to obscure these truths.” And it urged considering the “whole counsel of scripture, which urges not only compassion and provision for the poor but also the perils of debt and the importance of wise stewardship.” Signatories to CASE’s stance (including myself) are so far not so much senior church officials but theologians, ethicists, and lay activists. Check it out here.
In many moments of history, senior church prelates are stagnantly attached to the cultural status quo, however dysfunctional. Momentous social reforms usually arise from the lower ranks. Maybe CASE will signify a new groundswell among America’s church goers for fiscal responsibility and a genuine concern for the needy rooted beyond a failing Welfare State.
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. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/03/is-endless-government-debt-irr
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pellligrino| 8.3.11 @ 6:43AM
Correct in paragraph #9 . Big Government is working steadily to completely replace the role(s) for churches as the places where so much local charity is done.
Big Government and Christian faith are incompatible; Big Government wants the church gone -- forever. Just the same as National Socialism and Communism had no need for churches and steadily hunted down and persecuted stalwart pastors and lay leaders.
Big Government always aims to squash/eliminate true faith. (curent examples: North Korea, nearly all muslim lands)
Jim Wallis (and obviously many others) is the willing stooge for the undoing of Biblical Christianity in America.
Please post the names of the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) who participated in this folly. Thank you.
A moron can tell you that active churches and parishoners can do 100% better than Nanny State government dweebs coming from Washington, D.C. or the state capital.
Local people helping local people/neighbors. That is not only more effecctive, it is more moral. (You catch the lazy-ass freeloaders and fakes right away)
"If a man does not work, he does not eat."
Rev. Chuck Currie | 8.3.11 @ 2:36PM
Institute on Religion and Democracy Continues Campaign Of Disinformation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....47261.html
Alan Brooks| 8.3.11 @ 8:52PM
the South has the highest poverty rate.
Patrick| 8.4.11 @ 5:03AM
Don't worry, the North and California are doing their part to switch that around.
Mike D.| 8.3.11 @ 7:31AM
Just more of the same. Leftists and Communists using their growing collection of "useful idiots" to achieve their ends. When the iron grip of one party dictatorship gets a death grip on the power structure, religion and those who sold themselves down the river as religious leaders who bought into the utopiast bilge these scheming bastards sell are haul away to the CAMPS! Purpose served.
Communism is evil and any religionist who can't read history and find that out for himself is either on narcotics or so self delusional that reality itself has no meaning. 10's of millions of corpses testify to the fact of failed communist societies. Its just amazing to watch the same utopian/communist selling points work on the same stupid idiots it always works on. Any half witted dufus with a 10 cent brain who reads any history knows where this always ends up and yet here are the same things playing out once again. Stupidity is an amazing force of nature.
Mick Lee| 8.3.11 @ 7:38AM
Doesn't anyone think it is a theological error for a religious organization (whether it be an actual church or institution) tell a "multicultural society" what it should do based on Scriptural mandates? The whole "multicultural" bit is big stuff in many denominations and is often used as a club to beat down conservative issues such as abortion out of concern for "imposing our morality" on the rest of the citizenry.
After centuries of long experience, the Christian Church has come to recognize and teach that compelling "faith by the sword" is a violation of human dignity. How many centuries will it be before the Church realizes that using the State to fulfill its "social ministry" is equally wrong. Using the coercive power of the State to do its doctrinal bidding at others' expense should trouble even the most devout among us. If "faith by the sword" is stinks in the nose of God, then "charity by the sword" is an insult to liberty He gave to each of us.
This hardly the last word on society and government and caring for the poor. What a free and self-governing people do should be done out of their prudence, good judgment and experience. But beating our fellow citizens over the head with the Bible is not the way to do it.
(I should disclose that I am an orthodox Lutheran who believes very much the Church should use from the means of its disciples what it needs to feed, clothe and heal those in need.)
Brian Mc| 8.3.11 @ 7:52AM
The biggest job of big government is to prove that there is no place for God, only more government. Through the Fed's efforts, we have become a godless culture that perpetuates the need for more government. Short of an evangelical turnaround for a huge proportion of the populace, there is little hope that this mindset will dissolve leaving no need for the monster we have created...a compassionate government with ranks of bureaucrats ineptly doing the job that was once left to the family and the church. But, at least liberals can sleep at night in the full knowledge that they gave at the tax office.
Bill H| 8.3.11 @ 7:53AM
Wallis is trying to do to Evangelicalism what long ago happened to Mainline churches - namely, turn them into organs of the political Left. Democrats in the last election cycle explained that part of their strategy was to reach out to Christians. Wallis is their Useful Idiot.
Apparently what makes Wallis an Evangelical while the National Council of Churches is not is that Wallis quotes a Bible verse now and then to explain why Jesus is a Socialist; the National Council of Churches seems to prefers Marx & Lenin quotes. Other than that I'd say they are pretty much two peas in a pod.
W| 8.3.11 @ 8:05AM
Do these people really believe there is no safety net? Do they know about food stamps, Section 8, Public Defenders Office, Neighborhood Legal Services, Welfare, Social Security Disability and SSI, Workers Compensation, Unemployment Compensation for 2 years, Meals on Wheels, Acess transportation, Medicaid, CHIPS-insurance for minors, Energy assistance during the winter, scholarships, free public bus transportation for seniors, school lunches, and so on.
Americans are the most generous and compassionate people on earth. Maybe these groups should ask Pelosi to donate some of her millions, or ask her to pay the workers in her winery and other businesses higher wages.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:40AM
Oh no W, are you suggesting that our redistributionist spokespeople are in fact hypocrites? Who would have thought.
W| 8.3.11 @ 1:02PM
They see themselves as our moral guardians to perfect us to their image. They are worse than religous fanatics because they control the government and can impose their will by law.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 1:42PM
We poor benighted plebs must be ruled by our betters. The mandarin class, those from the right universities and of the proper philosophical persuation certainly should do all our thinking for us. Whe ever thought the people could rule themselves through representative institutions? Those fools.
Forgive me, I'm suffering from facetious today.
Merlin| 8.3.11 @ 8:16AM
"The Good Samaritian did not use a government credit card" (from the CASE letter)
Brian Mc| 8.3.11 @ 8:42AM
Perfect!
grant1863| 8.3.11 @ 8:34AM
I had a discussion a little while ago with a Obama supporter who saw no difference between the government TAKING my money to meet its wants and me GIVING to charity for my wants or desires. Of course he didn't mine the taking of my money because he was in the 50% that pay no income taxes.
The Bishop| 8.3.11 @ 8:41AM
There's just no other way to express it. This President is a turd in the body ecclesiastic.
David W| 8.3.11 @ 8:43AM
When someone forcibly takes money from someone else (whether by gun or by threat of prison) and gives it to someone else that is theft. This is regardless of the reason. Apparently these religious "leaders" have forgotten that commandment from God - thou shall not steal.
If I give money to help the poor, then I do so of my own free will and because I feel I have a moral obligation to (which comes from God, er, the spiritual God, not the Obama God). Taking my money and then throwing it away, after skimming a percentage off the top, is theft, pure and simple.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:42AM
All this stems from the fact that we have confused a personal obligation to charity with a government action to impose charity. Charity under compulsion is not charity at all. It is in fact, as others have noted, theft.
What we have done is set up the state as an idol for our worship. The gods of Choice, Tolerance, Diversity, Gaia etc. have replaced the concept of personal charity.
Pelligrino| 8.3.11 @ 4:26PM
To add on to your good thoughts here (and above), it is -- it very much should be -- about accountability.
If I am taxed for what government deems necessary for charitable acts, I am completely unaware of where my money goes. Yes, the taxed money could go to a person just 1/4 mile away. But that is very unlikely. It gets chopped into pennies and nickles and distributed to "causes" across the land.
So I cannot go knocking on the door of that unemployed welfare recipient on food stamps 1/4 mile away and "inquire." I'd be seen as a busybody and rude intruder.
Accountability.
It's completely different when we know exactly where the monies of four local churches -- monies pooled together to help three local families -- have been charitably given.
The deacons, elders, pastors, and ladies of the churches have every right to "check in" on the 3 families and see what is going on.
And that is what Big Government/The State abhors.
They want -- they thrive on -- no accountability.
RT| 8.3.11 @ 9:06AM
I'm sorry to hear that National Association of Evangicels and the Salavation Army had anything to do with that meeting.
Charity is necessarily performed with one's own resources, provided voluntarily. To perform "good" deeds with others' resources, taken from them involuntarily, is not charity; it is theft.
DaveD| 8.3.11 @ 9:29AM
Sorry or not, you should not be surprised. Charitable organisations, even those religiously based, have been taking Federal monies for a long time. They are simply attempting to preserve the cash flow.
darcy| 8.3.11 @ 11:44AM
If by taking federal monies you are referring to their tax-exempt status, then please know this: At our founding the national government considered the inculcation of basic Christian beliefs and values as being imperative and necessary to the perpetuation of the Republic, so much so, that it even FUNDED the printing of Bibles.
The tax-exempt-status of charities and churches are intended to promote private, voluntary, and socially beneficial activities among our populace for the furtherance of an ordered society.
It is, sadly, the case today that the social justice meme has overtaken much of Christ's church -- and instead of preaching Christ crucified for the sins of the world, involves itself in making heaven here on earth ("immanentization of the eschaton;" see Voegelin's chapter "The End of Modernity" in his Collected Works, Volume 5, Modernity Without Restraint), a fool's errand if ever there was one.
These Christ-less churches are the useful idiots (I'm being charitable here) of the other Utopians: the progressives, socialists, and the communists. Peas in a pod, indeed.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:52AM
Right you are Darcy, we have established an idolotrous state church to avoid our personal obligations. Charity under compulsion is not charity at all and the worship of idols destroys the humanity of those forced to worship.
DaveD| 8.3.11 @ 9:13PM
Not just tax exemption and tax deductability for contributions. A Christian hospital takes Medicare monies. A Christian home for abused women may very well take welfare subsidies. George W. had a program for this (blanking on the name but then again I'm old (63) and this is becoming more and more the norm). Once a charitable organisation starts to feed at the public teat they have great difficulty pulling back.
darcy| 8.3.11 @ 11:51PM
This is a very good point. That's why I belong to a church whose single mission is preaching the gospel. While we do have outreach to victims of disasters such as earthquakes in Japan, Haiti, and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, these are accomplished through private contributions from among our membership. We operate no hospitals or homes for abused women, and the like. In short, we have no entanglements with the "state" beyond our tax-exempt status; and even if that were withdrawn, our members would step into the breach to continue proclaiming the gospel.
Petronius| 8.3.11 @ 9:50AM
There's something fundamentally wrong with people who think "social justice" will occur when everyone else is as poor as they are. They're also economically illiterate and couldn't care less. But the worst aspect of their character is their prating on behalf of the hapless, helpless, hopeless, clueless waifs as a way to extort other people money. Wallis is a parasite's parasite and proud of it. His earthly reward is face time on CNN. He can spend his miserable existence breaking the 10th Commandment but his belief that his public demands that his betters be dispossessed is that of a brat screaming for approval while accomplishing nothing. And it's long past time that he and everybody else who just suck air and stick their hands out long enough to sign a benefit application learned this: The U.S. Government Is Not YOUR MOMMY!!! It does not exist to take care of anybody. And all life on earth is based on competition. Those who refuse to engage in it should take their infantile attitudes and their ignorant, indolent asses elsewhere. But what they really need is to be slapped upside their heads by Sister Superior with Her stainless steel combat yardstick and told what She said to us. "Boys and girls, the world does Not owe You a living!!"
C Smith| 8.3.11 @ 9:59AM
There was once a time when "Pure" religion was undefiled before God, visiting "the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (cf., James 1: 27), i.e., before the Sojourners, National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches, U.S. Catholic Conference, Salvation Army, and others acquiesced the Church's calling to the State.
Mary | 8.3.11 @ 10:10AM
The bible says the borrowerer is slave to the lender. There is verse after verse that talks about being a good steward of the money God has given/allowed us to earn. The bible also says if a man doesn't work he shouldn't eat. It amazes me how politicians and the "liberal" Christian (which is an oxymoron) never seem to read/bring up these verses. The best thing we can do for a poor person is provide them with a job.
I should not have to support a bloated government who chooses to spend money on programs that keep people slaves to the government. I also should not have to support people who have no ambition or are happy accepting welfare instead of supporting themselves.
darcy| 8.3.11 @ 11:49AM
Great comments, Petronius and Mary, simply stated and forceful.
Petronius| 8.3.11 @ 11:54AM
And Sister Consuelo makes 3
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:49AM
One who must work to provide to another is a slave. Debt makes slaves of us all. The massive amounts of borrowing to keep daily operations of the government going makes us the involuntary servants of Leviathan. We hit the debt limit on our national credit card so we went and opened another card. How long can we pay Visa with Mastercard?
Pope Testiculus II| 8.3.11 @ 10:30AM
ALL that we earn comes from the grace of God and His Mom, the sacred, eternal, holiest of all holy perpetual Virgin.
Therefore, since it's not really ours to begin with, we SHOULD give as much of our wealth to the poor, and Government is the PERFECT vehicle to redistribute this wealth.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Please be aware that the above admonition does NOT apply to the untold billions of dollars accumulated over 1,500 years by the Catholic Church. Most of that is for "benevolence" activities; the rest is "hush" money.)
W| 8.3.11 @ 12:30PM
I suspect you are a big federal spending lefty masquerading as someone opposed to government spending, and making your alleged message of anti government spending as coming from someone who believes in anti-catholic bigotry. Thus you link bigotry with conservative tax cutting and deficit reduction to try to smear both.
The conservatives on this site are too smart for your nonsense. Time to crawl back under your rock.
Clint| 8.3.11 @ 3:03PM
Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic Bigot Coward.
"Catholic Charities U.S.A.Together, with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government. "
Pope Testiculus II| 8.3.11 @ 3:29PM
My dear Clint...Ignorance such as yours can occasionally be offered a mulligan.
Genuflect, kiss my ring, go forth and sin no more against my all-knowing infallible wisdom. I offer you a one-time only indulgence.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....180905.ece
W| 8.3.11 @ 5:07PM
Dixie, my dear, is this you? why a different name?
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 8:11PM
Greetings again W
Nope...Not me.
We have a new playmate in this rhetorical sandbox and a funny one too.
Watching Pope Testiculus II and Clint go at it will be fun if the Pope keeps to such high humor standards.
W| 8.3.11 @ 10:14PM
I think it is you. And you think "pope" is funny and high humor.
W| 8.4.11 @ 2:14PM
went back to a 2002 article from England. obsessed with this issue.
Dixie Pixie| 8.5.11 @ 1:49AM
Greetings W
Nope ….Still not me
And you are still not Chevy Chase!
Clint| 8.3.11 @ 6:52PM
Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic Bigot Coward.
"Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.
These are findings from national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources (CMR), a tax and legal-advice publisher serving more than 75,000 congregations and 1,000 denominational agencies nationwide.
CMR's annual surveys of about 1,000 churches nationwide have asked about sexual abuse since 1993. They're a remarkable window on a problem that lurked largely in the shadows of public awareness until the Catholic scandals arose.
The surveys suggest that over the past decade, the pace of child-abuse allegations against American churches has averaged 70 a week.
Dr. Shupe suggests the 70 allegations-per-week figure actually could be higher, because underreporting is common. He discovered this in 1998 while going door to door in Dallas-Ft. Worth communities where he asked 1,607 families if they'd experienced abuse from those within their church. Nearly 4 percent said they had been victims of sexual abuse by clergy. Child sexual abuse was part of that, but not broken out, he says.
James Cobble, executive director of CMR, who oversees the survey, says the data show that child sex-abuse happens broadly across all denomination and that clergy aren't the major offenders.
"The Catholics have gotten all the attention from the media, but this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers," he says."
Clint| 8.3.11 @ 6:57PM
"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers.
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000.That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.
Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
W| 8.3.11 @ 7:53PM
Dixie, I am disappointed in you.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 8:26PM
Greetings again and again W
Nope ….. Pope Testiculus is still not me.
Pope John Paul's decision was good enough for me.
He stated that the Church Policy is that pedophile priests are to be tried, sentenced and punished in civilian courts.
Besides I have never considered the subject debatable in any way.
Oldefarte| 8.3.11 @ 11:06AM
As many of you are probably more aware than I of the biblical story concerning ten TALENTS given to each of two individuals, with one burying his 10 while the other made effective use of his 10. While some individuals are born with more economic/financial advantages/resources than others, all of us/everyone is morally required to USE our talents [and same is called 'RESPONSIBILITY']. When some refuse to dedicate themselves to education/school and end up ignorant and/or stupid and unable to beome gainfully employed [and thereafter indigent wards of the state/government], they are IRRESPONSIBLE. When others do the opposite and actively obtain an education and thereafter work, earn income, pay taxes and therefore become productive citizens [and not therefore dependent upon the state/government/taxpayers]; they are properly using the ten talents that were originally given to them. We need for more people to make use of their ten, and for less people to bury their ten!!!!!!!
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 11:10AM
I seriously doubt that Jim Wallis's Sojourners and the National Council of Churches has very many members living below the poverty line.
From the above picture it looks like all his members are of the upper economic classes.
The biggest scam the Left has going is the idea that they are taking from the rich and giving that money to the poor to insure social fairness.
The reality is the majority of that money is skimmed off the top by the Washington Ruling Class.
The poor only get a pittance to keep them in the scam.
Jim Wallis is only protecting his income stream because if the Federal Governmental has to prioritize its spending then the Sojourners and the rest of the Religious Left would be found to be an unnecessary expense.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:46AM
Hi Dixie:
The ostensible "charities" that get all the money only serve to fulfil a political agenda as well. Charity is a personal obligation on the part of each individual and it cannot be replaced by a government imposed "charity" that decides who is worthy. Confiscation and redistribution is theft nonetheless.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 1:04PM
Greetings Al Adab
There is a vast difference between a scam and a charity.
It is well known that the “Charities” are overrun with outright fraud and commercial / political businesses masquerading as Charities.
The bottom line is where does the money flow.
If that organization does not publish a complete and honest account of where the money comes from and goes, then the “Charity” is probably a scam.
The Clinton / Bush Haitian Charity is a case in point.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 4:27PM
According to a recently published list, non-profits are about the tenth largest contibuting industry to the left. How we might ask, can nons make contibutions since all too often the money they get comes from federal grants in the first place.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 8:51PM
Greetings Al Adab
During the 2010 election cycle Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid called the Congress into emergency summer session to allocate 47 Billion dollars to only the Democrats knows where.
Congress has just allowed Obama to borrow 2.1 Trillion dollars with no idea where it will go.
The Left has long mastered the art of cross organizational funding.
It would take s small army of accountants to unravel the Leftist / Democratic funding.
Ted| 8.3.11 @ 11:46AM
Circle of Protection....
That phrase is quite Orwellian.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 1:14PM
Not Quite Ted
If you add just one little word then it all makes sense.
Circle Of Protection Racket
That does not sound Orwellian at all, but is a good description of the Sojourners relationship with the Democrats.
the permanent newbie| 8.3.11 @ 7:27PM
Actually, the phrase "Circle of Protection" refers to an essential step of the occult practice of conjuring up/controlling and binding demons. The "Circle of Protection" must be cast before the summoning, to protect the sorcerer from whatever he calls forth. Why a group of ostensible Christians would use said phrase ... well, your speculations are welcome. I've got my own...
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 9:02PM
Greetings Newbee
The comic possibilities of your line of thought are enchanting.
But who will go first?
Greetings Newbee
The comic possibilities of your line of thought are enchanting.
But who will go first?
What branch of Judaism is the well-fed Rabbi in the above picture anyway.
Does he have some special talent that the Circle Of Protection needs.
Let the speculation begin.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 9:17PM
Apparently the Sojourners do have a counter charm or spell working because I don't know how my above post got so scrambled.
Yes, I did proofread the post three times before I hit submit.
Slacker| 8.3.11 @ 12:58PM
Sadly many in the “helping” professions, clergy included, tend to be very receptive to socialism. When pressed, my evangelical friend admits he doesn’t so much care about the means as they achieve the right ends. What sloppy thinking!
Frankly, most of us lack the intellect needed to properly assign morality to complex social problems. Good intentions don’t count for squat. I’d much prefer social policies based on cold calculations.
The Jim Wallis sorts are extremely arrogant to think they have the slightest clue how to run society.
Franco| 8.3.11 @ 1:10PM
Circle of Protection, huh? Normally I eschew brning people at the stake, but boy oh boy...
The Big E| 8.3.11 @ 1:31PM
You know, I seem to recall Christ mentioning something about how the poor woman who gave lest two pennies was more charitable and more faithful than the wealthy men who gave much gold, though it was only a drop in the bucket of their wealth.
Following the logic of people like Wallis, wherein Christian charity flows (apparently) not from a love of Christ and our fellow man, but from a governmental dictate, shouldn't the state then require the poor to be charitable as well? How can he justify denying the opportunity to be charitable to the 50% of the people who pay no taxes at all?
lrgon| 8.3.11 @ 1:54PM
Speaker Boehner (Republican) and Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate Minority leader) are looking out for the "needy." Not one single cut was made to foreign aid, that is money sent free of charge to the foreign needy to buy whatever their governments want to buy with the free US cash. Maybe even some guns and rockets to kill more needy people, who knows? There's not been an audit of where US foreign aid winds up buying, so I'm going to assume some of the aid to foreign governments goes for bombs not food.
Therefore it isn't fair for the "Circle of Protection" people to intimate that the House and senate leaders of the GOP don't care about the needs of the "needy." It's a matter of semantics as what or whom the "needy" are. But who notes those kinds of details?
Well,.... some people do>>>http://www.jbs.org/news/such-a-deal
David| 8.3.11 @ 2:04PM
As I have said here before, nothing will change with regard to the welfare state UNTIL all Americans are educated about the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which has been around for about 30 years now. It is easy to understand, yet so few actual taxpayers even know that it exists. We need to shout what this outright is all about from the rooftops until it is eliminated.
It will do no good to complain about the 47% of workers who pay no federal income tax. That is not going to change until people understand that those same people receive a check every year that comes directly from the people who do pay taxes. The amount varies depending on their income and number of dependents, but the giveaway checks average $3,000 to 4,500 a year.
That check is not to purchase food, or housing, or medical care, or medical insurance, and is not targeted to ANY SPECIFIC NEED. That check is used to pay for the WANTS of the leeches who pay ZERO federal income taxes and then get a huge transfer of wealth from the ACTUAL TAXPAYERS.
If we can't stop the outright theft, and I believe we can only if everyone knows what is going on and insists on stopping it, then forget about asking the 47% to pay any taxes, and forget about cutting any welfare programs whatsoever. It ain't gonna happen.
wolflen| 8.3.11 @ 2:04PM
in true hypercritical fashion...if churches were taxed as they should be..they would DEMAND tax reform..so they can help the poor...of course
Derek Leaberry| 8.3.11 @ 2:13PM
Moral squalor and fiscal immorality go hand in hand.
darcy| 8.3.11 @ 2:57PM
The finest summation yet of the fix we're in, Derek.
TrueBlue| 8.3.11 @ 3:31PM
It's my opinion that any organization that accepts federal funds or donates to a political party/candidate should lose their tax excempt status. Only truly politically neutral organizations should be tax exempt. If they want to say "Hey, we like this guy because he agrees with our opinions," that is one, thing, but actually giving money to government, or accepting it from them, creates the possibility for corrupting and outside influence that generally does not have the best interests of the organization at heart.
Rachel | 8.3.11 @ 5:12PM
Jim Wallis is a Marxist and has a long history of Leftist radicalism. http://www.discoverthenetworks.....indid=1833
How he still manages to pass himself off as "Evangelical" absolutely baffles me. His so-called "ministry", Sojourners, is really an anti-capitalist political organization which touts Big Government and forced redistribution of wealth as the panacea for society's ills.
Likewise, the National Council of Churches represents churches that have bought into the heresy of Liberation Theology, which seeks to dress up Marxist ideology in a cloak of scriptural misinterpretations. http://www.discoverthenetworks.....ities.html
These groups need to be exposed for the pretenders that they are. They do not represent mainstream Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. Their theology has been poisoned by Socialism, and that is what they advocate for.
POST American| 8.3.11 @ 10:59PM
"---No nation on earth should
be borrowing money ---EVER.
Who ARE these Rothchilds and
Rockefellers? These characters
haven't worked as the world works,
lived as the world lives ---for generations,
if even then. They create NOTHING
but their own agenda advancing bloody
mischief. Who and what's given them the
authority to be directing anything?
--Even in their 'best' days, they were
nothing but snake oil salesmen and
CON artists and psychopaths.
--WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?--"
-Alan Watt
(essential online coverage)
--------------------WHO in deed-------------------
MSriver| 8.9.11 @ 4:20AM
"Irreligious?" Irreligious? Why yes.
Christ the Lord made note of the height giving and being poor with the "widows mite" in her giving. For the truely religious, contributions to widows you recall, for the CHURCH (apostle's admonition) was shall we say, conservative with qualifications.
This re-affirms us back to as you say "from the lower ranks". Now for these orgs. to step up to in the name of the christian religion, reach for compulsory tax monies denies the spoken word of benefitting the poor with "cheerfull" giving. They do remark against the faith of congregants itself as being the 'least of these', and steps into a roll-mode never scripturally intended.
I'm in doubt due to the unfortunate constituancy of these you've listed, "pure and undefiled" in hopes of making "straight paths" is religiously inadmissable.