The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

A Response to Jim Wallis’s “What Would Jesus Cut?”

By on 3.4.11 @ 4:16PM

Jim Wallis and a number of other Christians involved in politics are trying to gain attention for the question, “What would Jesus cut?” The answer to this question is supposed to be as obvious as it is in other moral contexts. For example, would Jesus lie about the useful life of a refrigerator he was selling for Best Buy? No way. Would he bully a kid into giving away his lunch money? Not a chance. Would you find him taking in the show at a strip club on interstate 40 in Arkansas? Unlikely to the extreme.

Would he agree to a 2% cut in the marginal tax rate for income made above $250,000? Would he EVER accept a cut in welfare spending? Those take a little more thought. Jim Wallis and others think it’s a no-brainer. Let us reason together.

As I look over what Wallis wrote, I see several things worth noting. For example, he complains that some Republicans want to cut domestic spending and international aid, while they support an increase in military spending. The implication is that this is obviously a sub-Christian position. But is it? Probably the most essential purpose of government is to protect the life and freedom of citizens. The government achieves this goal through military means. Unless one takes the position that Christianity implies corporate pacificism, then it is unclear the Republicans have blundered according to Christian ethics. Now, match the question of military spending versus international aid and/or domestic spending. Are the latter obviously superior to the former? No. It depends on not only what the stated objective is for the different types of spending, but whether they actually achieve their purposes. To simply state that the Republicans want to bolster military spending while cutting international aid and domestic spending is to achieve nothing at all by way of an indictment.

Here’s another example. Wallis complains bitterly that tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans add billions to the deficit. He is referring to the extension of George W. Bush’s cuts in the marginal tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton. The first question I have is how does Jim Wallis know that the level of taxation was just to begin with? And why take Bill Clinton’s tax levels as the Platonic form of taxation? Maybe they were too high or too low. The highest marginal tax rates have fluctuated drastically in the United States during the last century. John F. Kennedy made a big cut, with impressive economic effects, as did Ronald Reagan. Is Wallis sure that by cutting taxes those men robbed the poor and gave to the rich? Maybe a lot of poor people got jobs because of them. And we aren’t even getting into the question of whether rich people actually have an enhanced duty to pay taxes. If there is a community need, is it righteous to grab a rich person and employ the power of legal coercion to extract the needed funds?

Still another problem with this redistributionist attitude about taxes and spending is that it assumes a zero sum state of affairs. For example, one could assume that the most people would be better off under a system like the old Soviet Union that spread resources out to citizens in a way that prized equality of rations. The United States system didn’t do that nearly as much, not nearly at all. But which of the two systems provided a better life for people? The answer is easy. The United States and its emphasis on liberty did. Why? A more free economic system produces far more wealth than an unfree one. If your equality system produces a little, bitty pie, it may give you a lot of philosophical satisfaction, but it doesn’t do as much actual good for people as the system that prizes free productivity and success over equality.

What Jim Wallis is saying comes from a good heart. He is worried about things like fairness and, of course, about helping people. But the reasoning he employs in doing so assumes that federal programs actually achieve what they set out to do, which is far from obvious, and that they don’t create incentives for behavior that results in greater problems, which often happens. He also assumes a zero sum society. It is entirely possible that economic thinking that concerns itself more with productivity than with equality will actually leave the great majority of people better off.

View all comments (81) |

Chuck| 3.4.11 @ 4:45PM

I will take a guess, if Jesus decided to make one cut in the federal budget it would be...Planned Parenthood. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 6:23PM

Indeed, since Planned Parenthood is bigoted and kills minority babies preferentially.

Jesus would also cut US funding to UNICEF, another evil organization (I know from 1st hand experience.)

Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 6:27PM

Wallis = Paul on foreign policy. ("Ring, ring, " Clint. Please Capitalize your rantings.)

Clint| 3.5.11 @ 6:09AM

The Fanatic Israel Firster Troll, Tool Job is Chronically & Clinically Upset because Dr. Ron Paul and Our Tea Party Mission Statement Don't Asskiss Tool Job's Personal Israel Firster Agenda.

Dr.Ron Paul:
# Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
# Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
# Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
# Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
# Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
# Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)

Occam's Tool| 3.5.11 @ 1:41PM

I have no problem, other than drug legalization, with Ron Paul's domestic policy. I have a major problem with his ignorance of terrorism. Be consistent, Clint; your digressions demonstate the feebleness of your STD infiltrated terrorist catamite mind.

Occam's Tool| 3.5.11 @ 1:49PM

As a former high school debater, let me note that Clint has confirmed my comments regarding Paul's pro-terrorist policy, which he defends as an "anti-Israel" policy, neglecting the fact that Iran and Al Quaida are pissed off at us for reasons that have nothing to do with Israel. As we used to say in cross-examine, "pull the argument through, as it is unanswered."

I have no problem with Paul's domestic policies except those regarding drug legalization, about which I am MUCH better clinically trained than Paul (unlike anyone else at this Blog, including Clint), and about which I have done extensive clinical work in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere, unlike Paul. No, my concern is that he votes like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy issues. That's a problem, and not just about Israel. It borders on treason. Explain how Paul's views will make us safer, given my proved hypothesis that disengagement will only make them come after us here. You can't, Clint. Thyat's why Paul will NEVER be nominated for President by the Republicans. Some of us love the USA. Much more than you, Clint. You're not the only person to have family members in the armed forces, asshole.

Clint| 3.5.11 @ 5:46PM

As a chronic former & current Israel Firster Verbal Masturbator,Tool Job is A World Class Troll.

Tool Job is clinically obsessed with Our Tea Party Favorite Dr.Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates

Aside from that, My concern is that You Vote like Jonathan Pollard & Ben ami Kadish , Israel Firster Fanatic TrollBoy.

" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”

Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."

Now, take two Shock Treatments & call yourself in the morning, Zany Peter Principle Excuse for A Shrink.

Occam's Tool| 3.5.11 @ 1:42PM

"Clinically upset?"

Clint| 3.5.11 @ 7:21PM

Tool Job Syndrome.

Alan Brooks| 3.6.11 @ 11:38AM

Israel Firster? why, Ben Gurion of course!

Clint| 3.6.11 @ 8:52PM

Why, ObamaBoy Brooks, of course.

Hunter Baker| 3.4.11 @ 4:57PM

That would be an excellent starting point, Chuck.

Patriot| 3.4.11 @ 5:00PM

Geez, Baker, Jim Wallis doesn't have a good heart; he is a Marxist who advocates the redistribution of wealth.
What is wrong with you and what the hell has happened to the writers at American Spectator?

TruthSpeakerTn| 3.4.11 @ 6:15PM

Exactly what I was thinking. AT writer should be ashamed that he doesn't know all about Jim Wallis
before he includes him in his article. Research, research, research.

Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 6:28PM

Wallis was with the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS. He's an a@@hat.

CalMark| 3.4.11 @ 8:31PM

Hear, hear, Patriot!

All these AmSpec writers sound like they're auditioning for a Big, Important Job in Washington: "Renowned good-hearted Christian and well-known Marxist.."

Mike| 3.5.11 @ 10:00AM

Patriot,

Thank you for boiling Baker's post down to it's essential point.

The question is would Jesus support the redistribution of wealth? Probably not, because he seems uninterested in compelling people to do anything. He did, however, set a high bar for loving and helping one's neighbor and called on us to meet the challenge. If I'm not mistaken, how one thinks about and reacts to "the least of these" is related to salvation. He also said something about judging.

Patriot| 3.5.11 @ 1:45PM

Redistribution of wealth is theft; it is the antithesis of love and compassion.

jharp| 3.5.11 @ 2:46PM

You are an abject moron.

Just how in the hell do you plan to pay for out $3 trillion dollar war?

Theft?

God you people are stupid.

Patriot| 3.5.11 @ 7:16PM

You Liberal morons voted for those wars, too (Coward Democrats 'voted for them before they voted against them'). Why do Leftists always try to rewrite history? Too bad, your selective memory doesn't work here.

Besides, you have a lot of nerve whining about GWB's policies , especially after the untold trillions we've spent on the "War on Povery."
You Leftists unleashed that debacle on our country 50 years ago and all we have to show for it are dead and dying inner cities that look like war zones, failed public schools that don't educate and the death of the American Black family. Everything you morally bankrupt clowns touch, you destroy.

Don't you have a beautiful Capitol building to stink up, loser?

Rogue Elephant| 3.4.11 @ 5:03PM

If he really wanted to help people, he would be out actually helping people and encouraging others to give of themselves to help people. ("None of us can help everybody. But, each of us can help somebody." - Ronald Reagan)

In addition, he should be out trying to save people's souls by bringing them to Christ. You don't enter heaven by good works, but by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. (And his ministry seems not even to be one of works, but public works.)

Hank Archer | 3.5.11 @ 12:40AM

Matt 19
16 Now someone approached [Jesus} and said, "Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?"
17 He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Sounds to me like Jesus thought behavior [good works] had something to do with salvation.

Rogue Elephant| 3.5.11 @ 3:29PM

You are saved by grace, but should do good works, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Ephesians (2:8-9.)

In Matthew, "good works" means voluntarily giving of yourself. “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.” (Matthew 19:21.)

But, Wallis' "public works" are not voluntary, but involuntary - using government coercion to compel others. Government action rests ultimately on the threat of violence - the sword. "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matt. 26:52.)

JimH| 3.5.11 @ 8:10AM

Well you know the left wing approach. Rather than helping someone yourself, become a community organizer and get the government to do it.

RWinks| 3.4.11 @ 5:10PM

What on Earth makes you think Wallis has a "good heart"! People who think like Wallis have murdered more than 100 million innocent people over the last 90 years. People like Wallis wish to turn the American people into livestock.

Doing good works is for individuals---not the State. Charity is a blessing for the giver. Being taxed so funds can be expended for political ends by the State merely makes one a victim of robbery. Wallis and his ilk twist the meaning of Christianity to serve their Marxist gods. They do not have "good hearts". They are evil. If the last 90 years of Progressive history hasn't taught us this, it has taught us nothing.

Patriot| 3.4.11 @ 5:27PM

Wallis is a very bad man. I can't believe Baker doesn't know this.

Jack Miller | 3.4.11 @ 5:38PM

What would Jesus cut? He wouldn't answer such a question. The closest he would ever get to opining on tax cuts is probably what is recorded in the Gospel of Mark:

"14They came and said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?
15"Shall we pay or shall we not pay?" But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at."
16They brought one. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" And they said to Him, "Caesar's."
17And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.

Wallis is misusing the name of Christ for his own personal/political agenda, just as the questioner was attempting to do in the above interchange.

JimH| 3.5.11 @ 8:16AM

I am no theologian and would welcome any informed input. I have always regarded this passage as meaning that things of this world, including money and all material goods are ephemeral and unimportant when contrasted to the kingdom of heaven. Christians please do not take offense if I say it seems similar to Buddhist teaching.

Jack Miller | 3.5.11 @ 10:20AM

The passage has more to do with the nature of Christ's mission and kingdom. He came not to remake this present world kingdom, but to call lost souls out of it into his kingdom. This is akin to Jesus words before Pilate: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight..." He is not advocating pacifism, but again speaking to the nature of his calling and those of his followers.

The kingdom of God is not established by the sword or the power of earthly governments. Likewise the kingdom of God is not established by transforming society through various legislative schemes. Though Christians, in this sense, are not 'of the world', they are yet 'in the world'; very non-Buddhist in that the things of this world are important, just not of Christ's kingdom.

As a citizen of two kingdoms, the individual Christian has a responsibility to work for the good of their current society through whatever legal means they deem best, voting for whatever policies that seem most likely to be just and effective towards particular goals. They can, and do, seek to alleviate suffering and help those disadvantaged. But doing so is simply being a good citizen, as Scripture teaches. Wallis blurs the line (as often do Christians from the right) between God's kingdom and that of this world by equating certain policies as "Jesus' preferred policies".

JimH| 3.5.11 @ 2:32PM

Thank you. Your reply is quite informative. It's good to get past some the nonsense on this site and make contact with intelligence.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:39AM

Dittos on what Jim said. That cleared it up for me as well.

Teflon93| 3.4.11 @ 5:41PM

"Render unto Caesar everything you own" is hardly Christ's teaching.

God lays claim to everything in this world. You'll look in vain in Scripture where He proclaims the State as the highest earthly institution---much less insists that care for the poor is anything but the obligation of every soul not to be fobbed off on "the rich".

Christ certainly expressed no such confidence in the ability of the State in this regard---do you recall his assurance that we should always have the poor with us (and that in direct response to a phony complaint regarding the use of expensive goods in an act of love that allegedly should have been used to the benefit of the poor)?

As difficult as it is for the rich man to get to the Kingdom, it most assuredly is virtually impossible for Marxist scolds who worship the State before God.

jharp| 3.5.11 @ 2:49PM

"God lays claim to everything in this world."

You religious crackpots tickle me.

And Noah had dinosaurs on his boat. And Methuselah lived to be 969 years old.

God you people are stupid.

Teflon93| 3.5.11 @ 5:42PM

We religious crackpots outnumber you quite a bit.

Given your inability to grasp simple grammatical concepts such as the proper deployment of subordinate clauses and the use of punctuation marks, you should be more careful in calling anyone "stupid".

Patriot| 3.5.11 @ 7:18PM

The troll's stupidity is only exceeded by his nastiness.

Teflon93| 3.5.11 @ 7:44PM

Union hacks have plenty of time on their hands to post their talking points. Point taken---starve the trolls.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:19AM

Whether religious or not, there's plenty to be learned from the stories in the bible. Do you always have to be so crass and nasty? Grow up, man.

I don't go to church, but my dad has told me the story of when Jesus was approached by Caesar's men to pay taxes and he refused to (or something like that).

Does anyone know which part of the bible that comes from?

Grant Johnson| 3.7.11 @ 10:23AM

It appears in several Gospels: Matthew chapter 22, Mark chapter 10 and Luke chapter 20 (around the middle of each).
The passage is somewhat ambiguous, as it was a trick question that was asked of Jesus. The Jewish authorities, feeling threatened by Jesus growing following, sought to get rid of him. They flattered him, then asked him if Jews should pay taxes to the Romans. If He said "Yes", Jesus would be discredited among his Jewish followers who resented the Roman occupation. If He said "No", it would be an act of open rebellion which the Romans would be quick to punish.
Jesus asked his questioners to show him a coin, which had the likeness of Caesar on it, leading to His famous "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's" response. The response was politically ambiguous, while remaining true to Jesus' emphasis on the distinction between passing worldly concerns and spiritual and eternal priorities.

Grant Johnson| 3.7.11 @ 10:41AM

Sorry, should be Mark chapter 12.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 10:44AM

Ok thank you. My dad told me that story before and I always wanted to read it.

Wayne | 3.4.11 @ 5:51PM

I would say that as a President, Jesus would have been the most demanding president we ever had. For example he would not tolerate waste and fraud. He would state to each federal employee that he must treat the taxpayers money as his own and not abuse it. Don't forget Jesus (as Christians believe) is God and God lets bad things happen.

So don't think Jesus would go beyond the Constitution and the purpose of Government. He would eliminate things that people and charities could do better. Their goes the welfare state. He would no doubt not like the idea of borrowing from the future, so their goes the national debt and the federal reserve.

I would say NO Republican is likely to be as conservative as Jesus. They would be too busy pandering for votes. But Jesus wanabes, that's another question.

jharp| 3.5.11 @ 2:54PM

"I would say NO Republican is likely to be as conservative as Jesus."

Jesus was a liberal you moron.

http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/

God you people are stupid.

Patriot| 3.5.11 @ 7:21PM

Jesus Christ is/was pro-life, troll and redistribution of wealth is just state-sponsored theft.

Clint| 3.6.11 @ 9:28AM

Jesus was a Conservative

By Aaron M. Rodriguez

http://www.thehispanicconserva.....ative.html

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:27AM

Let me see if I've got this straight:

Progressive Genocidal Liberals:
1) Adolf Hitler
2) Mao Zedong
3) Che Guevara
4) Joseph Stalin
5) Fidel Castro
6) V.I. Lenin

7) Jesus Christ??????

Uhhhh, it doesn't add up buddy. Nice try though.

Ken| 3.4.11 @ 6:04PM

In Luke 12:13 ff, Jesus has some very pointed things to say about greed. What occassioned His remarks?

A younger brother wanted Jesus to command an older brother to divide his wealth with him. The oldest brother would by tradition inherit a double share, twice the rest of his siblings, and be designated the principle heir.

It was the younger, dispossessed, disadvantaged one who thought it just that those with wealth be forced to redistribute it and tried to enlist Jesus in his program of "social justice." Jesus repudiated him very sternly and dressed him down for his greed.

Let Jim Wallis hear the words of the Lord he confesses.

Dixie Pixie| 3.4.11 @ 7:09PM

What would Jesus cut?
If he was alive today, he would be a Jewish carpenter and a part-time Rabbi.
His buddies would working-class fisherman and farm workers.
Do you know anyone with that profile who would tolerate deficit spending in the first place.

Jesus dramatically threw the moneychangers out of the Temple so you can be sure he would condemn the financial machinations of modern bankers, Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
He would throw out the overspending politicians thus "Cleaning the Capital".
He certainly would never tolerate borrowing and spending 43% over income.

The entire usage of "What Would Jesus Do" is a classic Agitprop machination of religious beliefs to prop-up the Socialist Propaganda line beloved by the Ruling Class.
The usage is ridiculous at best and always despicable.

Christopher Holland| 3.4.11 @ 7:35PM

Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple, so I don't think he would have been keen on TARP and the GM bailout. I don't think he would be printing money either, or borrowing like there was no tomorrow. And he never said anything about shovel ready projects, so that looks like another loser for him. I either Jesus was a gold bug and a balanced budget, low taxes guy.

JimH| 3.6.11 @ 8:16AM

I don't think the problem was money lending as such, but rather where they were doing business.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.4.11 @ 9:13PM

Hey Hunter,
did amspec pay you for that? I was well spoken, but so were the best free comments.

Folks, I think we should come up with a cash prize for the best comment of the day. What do Ya'll think?

Oldefarte| 3.5.11 @ 10:28AM

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!!!!!!!!!!

Mike| 3.5.11 @ 10:28AM

Ken,

I think we award the prize to the one who most effective argues that laissez faire capitalism and Chrisrianity are synonymous.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 10:04AM

There's a reason why Conservatism is Conservatism, and Capitalism is Capitalism, you fool.

Conservatism is NOT an economic theory in ANY sense of the word, idiot.

Mike| 3.5.11 @ 11:58AM

Jesus was never about government. "Render unto Caesar." Jesus was not a part of government nor would would he be a part of government. Jesus was all about personal responsibility. What man can and should do for man. The question of what Jesus would cut is moot. Regardless of what government does or does not do, Jesus articulated a position of love for your fellow man as a personal responsibility.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 10:03AM

You contradict yourself. You talk about a "personal responsibility" to take care of others. That's called, "taking responsibility for others" not "personal responsibility."

Can we at least agree on the meaning of words?

Lorna| 3.5.11 @ 3:18PM

Just because people are poor or live in poverty does not mean their cause is moral. According to the Bible teaching, if you do not work (to the best of your ability) you cannot eat. I have family who have not worked but expect the government to care for their needs. This is immoral according to Biblical teaching so these welfare programs need to be cut.

WeMustResist| 3.5.11 @ 9:55PM

"What would Jesus cut?" is not a good question for these reasons:
1) We cant get an answer. Jesus is discreet on this matter. He is keeping His answer close to His chest. Therefore the question is being asked in vain. With a rhetorical queston the answer is obvious, but this question is less useful than a rhetorical question, because it is asked in vain. It is a useless question.
2) Twice God thundered to Job (and so to all humans) "I ask the questions - you give the answers." The Lefties now want to pervert this. They want a question posed by humans - "What should we cut?' to be answered by their opinion of Jesus' opinion. Arrogant fools.

Greta| 3.6.11 @ 2:46AM

Jesus already made his statement known on this issue. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's Jesus was not concerned with the type of government or what government did because there was not welfare state in the Roman world. There was no social justic program. Jesus came for our souls, not to try to fix our welfare state. He is concerned of course therefore about things like killing, stealing, and honoring our mom and dad. He said to love others as we would want to be loved, not to take up their needs for we are to leave that to God. God might realize that a person needs to hit rock bottom for an extended period of time to save their soul and here comes some whacko leftist like Wallis to interfere with God's plan. What Wallis and the left do is somehow insert big government for our God. Of course it is Wallis who supported the continuation of the holocaust of Abortion by his support of democrats Barry, nancy, and Harry.

Yes, the same party that supported slavery and lynching of blacks, the founders of the KKK, and now the party of abortion. What a party to be behind as a so called person of God.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:37AM

Good point.

pete2| 3.6.11 @ 10:09AM

Jesus came to earth to save souls, nothing more. What goes on between Man outside of Redemption was not His concern, so stop with this "What Would Jesus Do ". Stupid BS by so called christians. No wonder people are getting fed up with "religion".

Teflon93| 3.6.11 @ 9:20PM

Your screed is bereft of Scripture for a very good reason.

Where may we find chapter and verse for the assertion that "what goes on between man (sic) outside of redemption was not his concern"?

The conduct of the apostles post-Pentecost surely puts the lie to this notion---the epistles bear this out forcefully, but the early Church fathers left a sizable body of work contradicting you as well.

As for people "getting fed up with religion", you'll need to account for 2 billion and growing numbers of Christians. Africa in particular isn't "fed up"; nor is Eastern Europe, emerging from decades of Communist repression of religion; nor is China, which is striving mightily to stamp out or co-opt Christian churches springing up all over the Middle Kingdon.

But why bother with facts, when nonsense will do?

NoLib| 3.6.11 @ 10:28PM

I'm fed up with tedious people who believe they are "spiritual" when they attack religion.

It's easy to be spiritual because it doesn't take any effort; being an active member of an organized religion is quite a different matter.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:35AM

This is true. Christianity is growing in the world, just not in the states. I hear they're having a huge resurgence in Christianity in South America and Central America.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:32AM

The only Christian, faith-based Revolution in the History of Mankind produced the United States Constitution. Arguably the most Conservative founding document of any society in the History of Mankind.

This discussion is over. Move on. Next subject.

Mike | 3.7.11 @ 9:48AM

The U.S. Constitution was a conservative founding document? No doubt King George and the Tories disagreed.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:51AM

Well, in today's terms, it is Conservative.

I hope you're not trying to say that today's Liberals are "Jeffersonian."

Wait a minute, do you even know what Conservatism is?

Conservatism is about maximizing freedom, so in that sense, it is absolutely the most conservative document in the history of man.

You need to read up, bro-ham.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:53AM

See: Chapter 1, "The Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater for a clear defining of Conservatism.

Mick Lee| 3.7.11 @ 2:09PM

If you look at it as a matter of restoring to those in the American colonies the rights of Englishmen, it makes perfect sense.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 2:20PM

What does that have to do with anything? You can't even define Conservatism properly, can you?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 2:31PM

Conservatism isn't whatever your perception of conservatism is in your mind. It doesn't just mean "conserve the old way of doing things".

If the word conservative means anything in how it relates to the question of government, it means "conservative with giving govt power and control over the people."

But still, even this way of describing conservatism is very shallow and does great injustice to this philosophy.

I havent read anyone define Conservatism better than Goldwater.

If you don't want to sound like an idiot referring to Conservatives and making false assumptions, then I suggest u take the 6 hours it takes to read "Conscience of a Conservative". Its only about 120 pages.

I know of Noone who has more clearly defined Conservatism. Not that I've seen at least.

NoLib| 3.7.11 @ 6:26PM

King George was a tyrant--why take his point of view? Moron.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:43AM

Conservatism puts man's spirituality above all else. Liberalism puts his economic needs above all. Therefore, Liberalism believes that man's materialistic WANTS are the most important.

This, also, doesn't remind me of Jesus.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:49AM

Correction: economic *wants

Welfare goes to households with 2 cars, big screen tv's, and cable to go along with it. I don't wanna hear this nonsense that these people are in economic "need."

The money spend on cell phones, cable tv, and many other "wants" sure could be used on things like health insurance and food.

Let's cut the B.S.

Would Jesus help those who couldn't do for self? I think he would. But would he give the fruits of his labor to Caesar's Children who don't need it? I highly doubt it.

Mike | 3.7.11 @ 9:53AM

Conservatism puts man's spirituality above all else?
Until now, I hadn't entertained the idea that laissez faire capitalism qualifies as spirituality.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 9:57AM

How can a man be free in any sense, if he is enslaved to an economic system that robs his wealth and cheats him of the fruits of his labor?

I thought there were stronger Conservatives on this site. maybe I'm wrong. Geez, I thought everyone here had read goldwater's book. Maybe I'm wrong.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 10:00AM

BTW, Conservatism is NOT an economic theory.

I'm sorry man, but I can't explain Conservatism to you, you need to read up. That's all there is to it. If you think Conservatism is an economic theory, I can't help you. It does have economic implications, but Conservatism is based around man's spiritual freedom.

You're gonna have to teach yourself the rest.

But I repeat, Conservatism IS NOT AN ECONOMIC THEORY.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 10:09AM

Mao Zedong was just doing the lord's work as he slaughtered 60 million (?) of his own people. Same goes for the Socialist Liberal Adolf Hitler, after all, Jesus was a Jew, he only wanted his friends with him in heaven, so Hitler was doing the lords work as well by systematically exterminating jewish people.

Don't these leftists sounds so Christ-like?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 10:11AM

Satan is Liberal. :D

Grant Johnson| 3.7.11 @ 10:38AM

Jesus would have (in fact, did) denounce all of us for our lack of charity and holding on to worldly goods. "Go, sell all you have, and give to the poor." He said to one individual. This is a high standard that each of us must wrestle with.

However, Jesus also denounced those who sought to compel others to give to those less well off. Jesus would not be impressed by Jim Wallis' coveting of the goods of the rich and his arguments for using the power of the state to substitute for personal charity.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.7.11 @ 2:36PM

What makes liberals dangerous, is that they really believe they are the good guys. The german left was on the wrong side of history in 1938, the left in cuba was on the wrong side in 1949. I could go on for days with examples, but conservatism has consistently been on the side of liberty. As goldwater said, "the Conservative is equally at war with the dictators who rule by terror, and with the jacobins who ask permission to play god with the human race." (Not sure if that's correct, recalling from memory, but its close)

Patriot| 3.7.11 @ 6:24PM

What makes Liberals dangerous is they're sociopaths. They don't have a conscience.

More Blog Posts by Hunter Baker

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/04/a-response-to-what-would-jesus

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|146 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|79 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|30 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.