Quantcast

Help me out here christian conservatives.

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,183
1
TN
Conservatives want to legislate christian morality into law.

One of the main tenets of christianity is charity. To be most 'christ-like' the more one gives, the better a person they are.

Conservatives oppose any tax increases which might be used to increase welfare benefits, healthcare, or education for the poor. They view using their earned income as "handouts" to the poor as a misuse of tax dollars. How is this different than charity? If conservatives want to mandate christian morality, why do they only pick and choose the parts that dont cost them anything?

Where is the consistency in that?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
i don't so much believe that we want to legislate morality unconditionally, as it's unrealistic mostly from its enforceability. imagine how laws against gossip, foul language, or obesity would fly over.

and i don't necessarily believe that blind charity makes a "better" christian as does wise charity. example: throwing cash to every panhandler. financially supporting programs which empower - not enable - is preferred.

as far as the pick-and-choose morals which are without costs, i point you toward the GWoT, which is exorbitantly costly, and by a great many in our midst, noble. unfortunately, bush didn't package it to include a humanitarian effort.

if what you believe is inconsistent, would you expect christians to pony up the cash for those people whose homes are in foreclosure? that's foolish, and against being a good steward of one of God's gifts.

why do i have a funny feeling this'll become a "gotcha!" thread?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Conservatives want to legislate christian morality into law.

One of the main tenets of christianity is charity. To be most 'christ-like' the more one gives, the better a person they are.

Conservatives oppose any tax increases which might be used to increase welfare benefits, healthcare, or education for the poor. They view using their earned income as "handouts" to the poor as a misuse of tax dollars. How is this different than charity? If conservatives want to mandate christian morality, why do they only pick and choose the parts that dont cost them anything?

Where is the consistency in that?
You're going to HELL.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,183
1
TN
i don't so much believe that we want to legislate morality unconditionally, as it's unrealistic mostly from its enforceability. imagine how laws against gossip, foul language, or obesity would fly over.
Well that's kind of my point, in essence, that picking and choosing different parts of the bible to enforce, based merely upon how non-committal they require the constituents to be, rather than upon some strict moral code that requires adherence to all the rules, is a little cheap.


and i don't necessarily believe that blind charity makes a "better" christian as does wise charity. example: throwing cash to every panhandler. financially supporting programs which empower - not enable - is preferred.
I think that's everyone's viewpoint, but people's actions and voting records don't necessarily support it. For instance, viewing subsidized healthcare for children as "throwing cash at a panhandler" doesn't seem like something jesus would do, but maybe I have the message wrong? Im pretty sure he cured prostitutes and random homeless people just because he felt it was the right thing to do. Because they were suffering.

as far as the pick-and-choose morals which are without costs, i point you toward the GWoT, which is exorbitantly costly, and by a great many in our midst, noble. unfortunately, bush didn't package it to include a humanitarian effort.
Ulitmately, if you view the GWoT as a "Christian" campaign, things are alot worse than I thought. Certainly mainstream american christians are behind it, and mostly because they view islam as an enemy, but if that was the actual motivation... how could something like the humanitarian aspect be left out when it should've been the most important part from a caring christian perspective?


if what you believe is inconsistent, would you expect christians to pony up the cash for those people whose homes are in foreclosure? that's foolish, and against being a good steward of one of God's gifts.
Well, if a member of my local congregation (assuming I was christian) came to church and said "I need help, lost meh job, house getting foreclosed" you can bet Id add to the collection plate. I bet most christians do that kind of thing all the time. Why is it incorrect to do so on a larger scale?
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
Well that's kind of my point, in essence, that picking and choosing different parts of the bible to enforce, based merely upon how non-committal they require the constituents to be, rather than upon some strict moral code that requires adherence to all the rules, is a little cheap.
You can only do so much, expend so much energy.

In Judiasm, you're supposed to do what you can. There are 613 mitzvahs and as a child, you're supposed to pick a few. As you age, you're supposed to do more and more. You can pick which ones you want to do.

Yeah, like merit badges :)
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Well that's kind of my point, in essence, that picking and choosing different parts of the bible to enforce, based merely upon how non-committal they require the constituents to be, rather than upon some strict moral code that requires adherence to all the rules, is a little cheap.
then by comparison, do you have more respect for sharia law, b/c it comes with the courage of their convictions absolutely? compare also how important it is to not murder -vs- how important it is not to tease your sister to (perhaps) grasp why some "morals" are in less strict demand of enforcement
I think that's everyone's viewpoint, but people's actions and voting records don't necessarily support it. For instance, viewing subsidized healthcare for children as "throwing cash at a panhandler" doesn't seem like something jesus would do, but maybe I have the message wrong?
i'm unaware of an opinion so broad as to reasonably associate it with us. is this something you saw on the 700 club?
Ulitmately, if you view the GWoT as a "Christian" campaign, things are alot worse than I thought.
no worse than the parable of the good samaritan, except that it took having a personal interest to lay down some heat. intervention in sudan would be a nice thing to do, but not everyone's on board, mostly b/c not everyone views their plight with the same urgency (even within the christian ranks). i'm thinking of jfk's "pay any price, bear any burden, etc." inaugural address for the latter, and i can't help but wonder if dubya really was the fundamentalist people fear he was if the sudan would be in the shape it's in today.
Certainly mainstream american christians are behind it, and mostly because they view islam as an enemy,
not exactly; radicalization of it rather. i think we can all agree that unchecked religious zealotry can never be good
Well, if a member of my local congregation (assuming I was christian) came to church and said "I need help, lost meh job, house getting foreclosed" you can bet Id add to the collection plate. I bet most christians do that kind of thing all the time. Why is it incorrect to do so on a larger scale?
making things personal makes them, well, personal. to your larger point of scale, concern is raised b/c there's been a rich history of both perceived & real abuse. akin to: "if giving is so good b/c it helps people, why do these same people still need help?". i think we can also agree cash cows w/o any sunset aren't very helpful in teaching people "how to fish".

but as far as pure financial contributions, let me leave you with one assignment: find out which groups privately give the most to charity as a percentage of net worth or income. not to deflect your questions, but rather to give them perspective. i expect you'll find the breakout is less significant among political identity as it is among whether or not they are religiously observant.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
27,253
2,117
but as far as pure financial contributions, let me leave you with one assignment: find out which groups privately give the most to charity as a percentage of net worth or income. not to deflect your questions, but rather to give them perspective. i expect you'll find the breakout is less significant among political identity as it is among whether or not they are religiously observant.
hmm, seems that you are correct, although it's not the only factor, of course:

http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/dspace/bitstream/1961/3602/1/etd_ath6.pdf

thethesislinkedabove said:
I found that belonging to a religious congregation had the greatest impact on charitable
giving, followed by whether they volunteered within the past year. Other variables such
as home ownership, marital status, and education also had positive effects on charitable
giving. When I examined charitable giving in terms of absolute amounts, variables most
closely linked to higher income had the strongest influence on charitable giving.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
well, it's the nose on your face that ability translates to action.
my point is when everything is equal (or even unknown), religious observance translates to more giving.

of course, we mustn't ignore emotional manipulation. here's where the likes of creflo dollar, benny hinn, & their ilk begin to play with fire. not literally....yet.

get pissed: http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/H_Home.asp