Question(s) for Christians

[BayBuck]

Thus, even though I give to Caesar what is due, I don't expect Caesar to use that money wisely, efficiently, or morally. Add to this distrust, the fact that I am a Tocquevillian conservative, by which I believe the more an individual gives over to government to take care of the community's needs, the more the individual diminishes himself by becoming less concerned with those in his community and the more tyrannical the government becomes because the individual selfishly relenquishes his power and authority to the government inorder to take care of his neighbors, so as not to be bothered by them.

This is exactly what I was getting at with my first post that suggested government's attempts to provide a seemingly-beneficial public service could actually be motivated by the desire for control over the people. Very well said by bgrad, as usual.

 

[cincibuck]

I would start with the most simple and basic reason. In order for a government to provide a service, they first have to steal it from someone else. There is no such thing as providing something for nothing, and since the government doesn't create anything, they have to acquire what they want by stealing it from others, period.

So, are you advocating doing away with police and fire service, sidewalks, schools, highways, parks? the mind boggles here at all that we receive from taxes. Do you see these as "stolen from you?"

Are you advocating a return to a confederacy? We tried that twice and it didn't work either time also.

From a Christian perspective on health, we should be good stewards of what we have, including our own health. Healthcare costs are only an issue in this country because health is an issue first. If the average Joe was taking better care of himself there would be plenty of money in the insurance pots to take care of those who have legitimate health issues. I don't know about you but I would much prefer my money go to help someone that was born with a disability than to a guy that need quadruple bypass because he lived on Big Macs.

"Judge not lest ye be judged?" I remember that being in the gospel. I remember, "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's" i.e. pay your taxes.
I seem to recall, "What you do or say unto the least of these, you do and say unto me."

Gosh, Glen Beck is right! When you hear the words 'social justice' get up and walk out of that church. Clearly "The Good News" is a call for social justice and communisim.

 

[BigWoof31]

A lot of Christians are republicans. A lot of republicans oppose social programs. I'm asking whether or not that contradicts Christianity.

I'll add my opinion as well since I fall into the Republican and Christian category as well.

My problem with Government entitlement programs is two fold:

1. I believe that charity of any form is a choice and it comes in many forms - time, skills, money...etc. The giving of charity is designed to help someone up or through a difficult time. It can be as benevolent as you want it to be, but it is finite and should come with the understanding that eventually the individual must follow positive examples and support/nourish/heal themselves.
(The obvious exception to the finite rule is the care of the mentally handicapped or invalids)

2. The primary lesson I have learned in all of my faith based education has been personal responsibility and some level of discipline. I believe Government entitlement programs ask neither of its recipients.
"Why save money - I've got SS" - thankfully, most consumer advocates have widely shot this down (Clark Howard, Dave Ramsey...etc).
"No need to plan for insurance - Medicare will cover me!"
"Of course I can buy this cell phone! My funds might be limited, but I don't have to pay for food because of public assistance!"**

**These are severe dramatizations and I understand most people on public assistance are quite humble. Many have "0" motivation to change their current situations since they have developed a level of comfort with their programs.

 

[jadudley03]

So, are you advocating doing away with police and fire service, sidewalks, schools, highways, parks? the mind boggles here at all that we receive from taxes. Do you see these as "stolen from you?"

Are you advocating a return to a confederacy? We tried that twice and it didn't work either time also.

I am not arguing against paying taxes, as has already been pointed out "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's" is to be obeyed so long as it does not contradict God's commandments. However, that doesn't make the tax system a good idea.

And I never said we didn't get anything in return for our taxes either. I am thankful for those things too. I am happy to pull my weight for the greater good, just tired of knowing too much of it is getting wasted.

But there is a big difference between one entity taking and re-distributing however they like vs. giving generously because it is the right thing to do. And it should start local and work it's way out, not go out and work it's way back in.

Think about things like Flexible Spending Accounts. If the government really wanted to provide a valuable service to the end user, why not just allow an individual to write off the equivalent amount of $ for medical expenses at the end of the year. Instead they create a convoluted system where you have to try and guess how much you are going to need that year, then if you don't use it you lose it. That is simply absurd, not to mention it requires additional people to manage a secondary system.

"Judge not lest ye be judged?" I remember that being in the gospel. I remember, "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's" i.e. pay your taxes.
I seem to recall, "What you do or say unto the least of these, you do and say unto me."

Gosh, Glen Beck is right! When you hear the words 'social justice' get up and walk out of that church. Clearly "The Good News" is a call for social justice and communisim.

You cannot judge someone's heart (intentions) but you most certainly can judge their actions. Think about it... you know someone is a child molester, do you leave your kids with him? No, you make a judgement based on knowledge of previous actions. Or, someone calls them self a Christian but their actions contradict what the Bible teaches. Or, the government says we are going to improve healthcare and reduce costs, but history and many other government programs prove otherwise.

 

[cincibuck]

but history and many other government programs prove otherwise

But government programs have created wealth and opportunity for this nation. Where would the South be without Roosevelt's TVA? (In fact, where would any of the Red states be without government spending, but that's a whole other issue). How much did the economy grow due to rural electrification being "shoved down their throats?" How much did business benefit from USPS, the highway system, canals, dams -- And what about GI Bill taking massive numbers of men who would have never obtained a college education had it not been for "stealing" money from others. What did that add to our economy to have a sudden increase in so many well educated workers who could then turn around and buy a house for no money down, thus giving the housing industry (and the appliance manufacturers, and the lumber, brick, concrete, copper, steel interests) a boot in the ass.

You can't presort who gets help, but the whole point of Christ's message is that you have to give -- what people do with the gift is their problem -- how many of the blind come back to thank Christ? How many lepers? Yet he goes on healing and if that isn't a call to be generous and merciful, to be active in social justice, then I clearly don't understand what I'm reading in the Gospel.

 

[Taosman]

"Why are so many of you against entitlement/social programs and how do you justify it?"

A big question for sure.
There seems to be some question among Christians about what defines "need".

 

[Taosman]

This is exactly what I was getting at with my first post that suggested government's attempts to provide a seemingly-beneficial public service could actually be motivated by the desire for control over the people. Very well said by bgrad, as usual.

"Motivated by the desire for control over people"?
Conspiracy theory at work?
And surely churches have never been "motivated by a desire to control" people?
Just sayin'.

 

[AKAK]

But government programs have created wealth and opportunity for this nation. Where would the South be without Roosevelt's TVA? (In fact, where would any of the Red states be without government spending, but that's a whole other issue). How much did the economy grow due to rural electrification being "shoved down their throats?" How much did business benefit from USPS, the highway system, canals, dams -- And what about GI Bill taking massive numbers of men who would have never obtained a college education had it not been for "stealing" money from others. What did that add to our economy to have a sudden increase in so many well educated workers who could then turn around and buy a house for no money down, thus giving the housing industry (and the appliance manufacturers, and the lumber, brick, concrete, copper, steel interests) a boot in the ass.

Except none of these things is a "right"-- and are not represented as such.

And... for that matter... they are not entitlement programs.

I seriously don't see your point.

In none of those cases does the government require me to buy a service from a private corporation or be fined.

And please save the counter-pontification, I'm no Christian.

 

[Taosman]

AKAK, this is a philosophical point of view. Some believe that government should lead the people. In fact many elect a government just for that.
Of course the opposition believe that government is too big and can't do anything "right". (these people usually vote for the other guy) :tongue2:

 

[AKAK]

AKAK, this is a philosophical point of view. Some believe that government should lead the people. In fact many elect a government just for that.
Of course the opposition believe that government is too big and can't do anything "right". (these people usually vote for the other guy) :tongue2:

Yes... but... philosophically, we can discuss the matter of "rights"

Positive and Negative.... for example.

For example, Positive rights can be things like the "right to healthcare"

While Negative rights can be teh government saying everyone is equal.

I want to vomit when I hear the healthcare bill being compared to civil rights legislation...

See... I'm okay with the government providing rights on the basis of subjective views about "equality.

Like, "Hey White Guy that Black Guy is equal to you" (Or, conversely, Hey Black guy, you're equal to the white guy, sorry we fucked up for so long... however you want to say it)

This isn't that.

This is, "Hey, guy with health insurance, the guy who didn't have it is now equal to you. Oh, By the way, you owe him 20 bucks"

 

[sepia5]

Except none of these things is a "right"-- and are not represented as such.

And... for that matter... they are not entitlement programs.

I seriously don't see your point.

In none of those cases does the government require me to buy a service from a private corporation or be fined.

And please save the counter-pontification, I'm no Christian.

You might direct this post at the poster cinci was responding to, since it was initially his statement that went well beyond the topic of entitlements.

 

[sepia5]

Yes... but... philosophically, we can discuss the matter of "rights"

Positive and Negative.... for example.

For example, Positive rights can be things like the "right to healthcare"

While Negative rights can be teh government saying everyone is equal.

I want to vomit when I hear the healthcare bill being compared to civil rights legislation...

See... I'm okay with the government providing rights on the basis of subjective views about "equality.
"

Would you support single-payer, then? Wherein, everyone gets the same coverage?

 

[Taosman]

"If someone wants to believe in another religion or none whatsoever, more power to them. But Christianity simply doesn't leave room for the contradictory and muddled nature of the beliefs found in most Christians today (in america, at least)." jwins.

Eloquently and beautifully stated. Jwins is clear and unwavering in his beliefs and not making excuses.

 

[AKAK]

You might direct this post at the poster cinci was responding to, since it was initially his statement that went well beyond the topic of entitlements.

Actually, not so much, that was Cinci's take... he went down the "roads, sidewalks" and whatever path. Don't worry, Cinci and I are big boys. We'll PM if we need to.

Would you support single-payer, then? Wherein, everyone gets the same coverage?

Sepia, I love you man. But sometimes you read way the fuck too much into people's intentions, man.

But, I'll respond this way.

No, I do not want to have to buy "Choco Peanut Butter Bombs" with no prize in the box when I know the Cap'n Crunch is better and I get a secret decoder ring.

 

[sepia5]

Sepia, I love you man. But sometimes you read way the [censored] too much into people's intentions, man.

I'm an attorney.