the difference between cats and dogs, continued....
My post from August 13, entitled "The Difference Between Cats and Dogs", generated such wildly inaccurate response that I decided to address the inaccuracies in a new post. I have found that the distorted worldview of the typical secular progressive, as represented in the comments by Anonymous and Bukko, are very useful in that they present us with a teachable moment (I know how much you love that phrase, Bukko!). Let the lesson begin!
I already responded to the comments by Anonymous regarding the secular progressive position on religion in the public square, so I won't rehash that. I will respond, however, to the comments of both of them regarding the "poor" in America. Anonymous makes the comment that, since many of America's poor are single mothers, they wouldn't have the time, the money, the inclination, or the intelligence to continue their education in hopes of landing a better job. Bukko goes even further when he says, "Two countries, two sets of people, but one thing in common: these impoverished buggars were too disorganised to ever get it together. They drank too much booze, did drugs, were stupid, mentally ill, or just too scattered to ever get up the ladder. Yet they were still humans, some of God's creations, if you want to see them that way." Wow! I'll admit that I spent quite some time this week re-reading those comments, just to make sure that I wasn't somehow misinterpreting them. It's pretty clear to me that these two fine liberals view the poor as somewhat less than human. I don't ever want to hear another lecture on how "compassionate" liberals are. One more example of a liberal lie.
The best way to proceed is to outline how the Christian conservative views the poor, and how the Christian conservative believes that "we the people" should respond to the problems of the poor. First, the Christian conservative believes that there is a very big difference between the world's definition of "poor" and America's definition of the word "poor." Simply put, poor people outside the "friendly confines" of the U.S.A. would think they had died and gone to heaven if they were as wealthy as America's poor. 97% of America's poor own a color TV, and 50% own two color TV's. 75% of America's poor own a car, and 50% own their own home. 90% of the world's poor, outside the U.S., have NOTHING. They are in a 24/7 battle for survival. So it's important to understand that, although we do have a very real obligation to help the poor in this country, it's also important not to lose perspective.
Second, the Christian conservative views ALL people, rich or poor or in between, as a human being created by God. They are our neighbor, and we are commanded to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves. We take that command very seriously.
Third, the Christian conservative believes that assistance to the poor is best handled by "we the people" on an individual basis, and corporately through our churches and local government. We believe that the federal government has no business whatsoever in giving any aid at all to the poor. Why is that? Because every single federal assistance program ever created has wasted billions of dollars giving financial aid to people who didn't need it. Because federal assistance creates more poor people. Because federal assistance takes away all incentive to work to move up the economic ladder. Because federal assistance doesn't work. It is the business of the church to take care of the poor in their communities, and the church is very effective at it. We (my family and I) participate, through my church, in a program called Interfaith Hospitality Network. IHN brings shelter, meals, and support services to families without homes. You can read more about IHN at www.nihn.org/ihn/ihn.html, and I encourage you to do so. We regularly serve as a host family. This means that we come to the church to meet the families as they return from the job training/placement programs and home search programs they attended during the day. We provide and prepare the evening meal, and we all sit down and share that meal together. We interact with the adults, play games with the kids, and pray together. It is a wonderfully successful program, and it is a blessing for all of us. The vast majority of the families sheltered by IHN go on to find their own homes, and jobs which provide sufficient compensation to maintain those homes.
Do you want an example of how federal welfare works? In New York City, 11% of all African-Americans over the age of 16 receive SSI and welfare, and only 53% hold jobs. Compare that to black Caribbean immigrants of the same age living in NYC. Only 6% receive SSI and federal welfare, and 66% hold jobs. Why? Because Caribbean immigrants are barred from government assistance for 2 years after they come here. They have to get jobs. Interesting, eh?
In a nutshell, the Christian conservative believes that helping the poor is a command given to us directly from God, and we want to do it the right way. Giving that responsibility to the federal government is not "doing it the right way."
I already responded to the comments by Anonymous regarding the secular progressive position on religion in the public square, so I won't rehash that. I will respond, however, to the comments of both of them regarding the "poor" in America. Anonymous makes the comment that, since many of America's poor are single mothers, they wouldn't have the time, the money, the inclination, or the intelligence to continue their education in hopes of landing a better job. Bukko goes even further when he says, "Two countries, two sets of people, but one thing in common: these impoverished buggars were too disorganised to ever get it together. They drank too much booze, did drugs, were stupid, mentally ill, or just too scattered to ever get up the ladder. Yet they were still humans, some of God's creations, if you want to see them that way." Wow! I'll admit that I spent quite some time this week re-reading those comments, just to make sure that I wasn't somehow misinterpreting them. It's pretty clear to me that these two fine liberals view the poor as somewhat less than human. I don't ever want to hear another lecture on how "compassionate" liberals are. One more example of a liberal lie.
The best way to proceed is to outline how the Christian conservative views the poor, and how the Christian conservative believes that "we the people" should respond to the problems of the poor. First, the Christian conservative believes that there is a very big difference between the world's definition of "poor" and America's definition of the word "poor." Simply put, poor people outside the "friendly confines" of the U.S.A. would think they had died and gone to heaven if they were as wealthy as America's poor. 97% of America's poor own a color TV, and 50% own two color TV's. 75% of America's poor own a car, and 50% own their own home. 90% of the world's poor, outside the U.S., have NOTHING. They are in a 24/7 battle for survival. So it's important to understand that, although we do have a very real obligation to help the poor in this country, it's also important not to lose perspective.
Second, the Christian conservative views ALL people, rich or poor or in between, as a human being created by God. They are our neighbor, and we are commanded to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves. We take that command very seriously.
Third, the Christian conservative believes that assistance to the poor is best handled by "we the people" on an individual basis, and corporately through our churches and local government. We believe that the federal government has no business whatsoever in giving any aid at all to the poor. Why is that? Because every single federal assistance program ever created has wasted billions of dollars giving financial aid to people who didn't need it. Because federal assistance creates more poor people. Because federal assistance takes away all incentive to work to move up the economic ladder. Because federal assistance doesn't work. It is the business of the church to take care of the poor in their communities, and the church is very effective at it. We (my family and I) participate, through my church, in a program called Interfaith Hospitality Network. IHN brings shelter, meals, and support services to families without homes. You can read more about IHN at www.nihn.org/ihn/ihn.html, and I encourage you to do so. We regularly serve as a host family. This means that we come to the church to meet the families as they return from the job training/placement programs and home search programs they attended during the day. We provide and prepare the evening meal, and we all sit down and share that meal together. We interact with the adults, play games with the kids, and pray together. It is a wonderfully successful program, and it is a blessing for all of us. The vast majority of the families sheltered by IHN go on to find their own homes, and jobs which provide sufficient compensation to maintain those homes.
Do you want an example of how federal welfare works? In New York City, 11% of all African-Americans over the age of 16 receive SSI and welfare, and only 53% hold jobs. Compare that to black Caribbean immigrants of the same age living in NYC. Only 6% receive SSI and federal welfare, and 66% hold jobs. Why? Because Caribbean immigrants are barred from government assistance for 2 years after they come here. They have to get jobs. Interesting, eh?
In a nutshell, the Christian conservative believes that helping the poor is a command given to us directly from God, and we want to do it the right way. Giving that responsibility to the federal government is not "doing it the right way."
posted by hondo at 10:06 PM
2 Comments:
I wholeheartedly agree. One very sucessful religious organization is the Salvation Army. Their revivalist message has not been lost in their phenomenal social activity.
Meanwhile, churches everywhere can and do help in innumerable ways. If the worldwide church would act as ONE, and give their tythe regularly toward that goal, there is no telling what could happen! Read my blog of July 27. I did rough calculations and deduced that regular tything across the board, could pull over 5 million Americans out of poverty with jobs paying the average income of $45,000!
Just giving money to the poor won't make them not poor anymore. Some people if you give them bathtubs they just peel potatoes in them. How about those people from new orleans that spent govt bucks in strip clubs.
Post a Comment
<< Home