Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

8 Biblical Verses That Leftists Have Gotten Completely Wrong
David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | October 25, 2010 | Chris Queen

Posted on 10/25/2010 2:46:05 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative

Politicians of all stripes endeavor to invoke the Bible for many reasons. Some try to use God’s Word to score points with the Christian or Jewish communities. Others employ a Biblical analogy or story to drive a point home. A few even share impactful passages out of sincere faith. However, it appears that most politicians — on the Left as well as on the Right — use the Old and New Testaments to prove or further their agenda.

One of the most insidious and troubling areas in which politicians have co-opted scripture is the “social justice” movement. Since the 19th century, Leftists have attempted to use particular passages from the Bible to achieve progressive and often radical or statist ends. From communitarians to eugenicists to early 20th century progressives to New Dealers, evangelists of various strains of the Social Gospel have attempted to utilize the Bible to justify their views.

Civil rights leaders from the 1950s until today have used scripture to prove their point. Jimmy Carter made no secret of his Christian faith, and he claimed to center many of his policies around it. The environmentalist movement has attempted to lure Jews and Christians into its fold by using the Bible, even coining the term “Creation Care” to make radical environmentalism palatable to believers. The progressive Social Gospel concept has come front and center in the Obama era, with Leftist religious leaders like Jim Wallis and his group, Sojourners, peddling their peculiar band of radically Leftist religious conviction.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bible; godgap; religion; religiousleft; socialism; socialjustice; theleft
Absolutely shameless.
1 posted on 10/25/2010 2:46:08 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

So much for confiscation and redistribution of “the other guy’s stuff” being in ANY way biblical.

Those who stir up such feelings of greed and envy and class war among the “have nots” are sinners.


2 posted on 10/25/2010 2:54:32 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

btt


3 posted on 10/25/2010 2:54:39 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Except that once it becomes "Taxed", It's no longer yours. No where does the Bible say that consfication through taxes is wrong. In fact the Bible comes out in support of taxes.

Once it is taxed , it is government's to do with what it will. It's the downside of having a government that God warned Israel about when they wanted a human King instead of God as King.

"We the people" who formed our government, have limited government's role. So that government can't do "anything it want's". And it can't tax us without facing us in the next election as the democrats are finding out. But enforcing those limitations is an ongoing battle, that requires an alert and informed citizenry.

4 posted on 10/25/2010 3:01:35 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

Here is a list of the Bible verses they have gotten right:


5 posted on 10/25/2010 3:04:27 PM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan

ConservaTexan—Great list of verses the religious left has gotten right. I’d add to your list the following:


6 posted on 10/25/2010 3:08:28 PM PDT by ancientart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

Usually they seem to rely a lot on “judge not lest ye be judged.” I’ve seen the others referenced in the article, but that one has to comprise 80-90% of the leftist quotes to scripture.

Notably they take that quote out of context all the time too.


7 posted on 10/25/2010 3:09:47 PM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

Bump for later


8 posted on 10/25/2010 3:22:46 PM PDT by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange
I'd say it's a close race between that verse (Matthew 7:1) and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrase of John 8:7) as their favorite misquoted Bible verses.

Their goal is to silence dissent. We are to shut up while they continue to judge and sin.

In the Matthew text, it continues on how the measure we judge is how we shall be judged and goes into the area of hypocrisy.

In the John text, Jesus was dealing with entrapment, where the ruling elite were trying to set Jesus up to either part with Mosaic Law or come against the ruling Roman Law.

The left will also often quote "give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22; Mark 12; Luke 20) to justify taxation, but yet again that was another instance where the ruling elite were trying to entrap Jesus and He saw through their schemes.

9 posted on 10/25/2010 3:33:42 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange

You are absolutely correct. Anytime any person or group tries to speak out against some evil, a large group will come out with that “judge not” statement.

If you read the whole chapter it is obvious it is talking about hypocrisy. Elsewhere the Bible clearly says we are to oppose evil even being, oh horrors. judgmental.


10 posted on 10/25/2010 3:38:18 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The whole “Eat The Rich” mentality is unbiblical. It is the socialist-anarchist mantra.

So is “No Gods No Masters”.

And yet they still want SOME system of structure to provide socialized medicine.

In their bicycle fueled utopia where they are in charge.


11 posted on 10/25/2010 3:50:15 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative; a fool in paradise; DannyTN; FateAmenableToChange

I do not believe any listing of scriptures murdered by the left would not be complete without including, “Thou shalt not kill”. The best source I have found for discussing this scripture is C.S. Lewis, who’s life journey besides his intellect eminently qualifies him discuss the topic. He abandoned a scholarship to Oxford in 1916 to serve in the British army as an officer with the Somerset Light Infantry. He was wounded at the Battle of Arras, mustered out, and suffered depression during his convalescence. The quote comes from Mere Christianity, which was fleshed out from radio broadcasts he made during WW II.

“Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If one has committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is therefore in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy, I always thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and still think so now that we are a peace. It is no good quoting, “Thou shalt not kill.” There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more that all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when he met a Roman sergeant-major - what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for defense of a good cause - is one of the great Christian ideas.”

The distinction in Hebrew is ratsach in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, which corresponds to our understanding for most cases of first degree murder. In military and other settings the words muwth, harag, shamad, charam and shachath are used, with King James translations of kill, slay or destroy. Sorry about missing all the accent points, but Word has its limitations.


12 posted on 10/25/2010 3:55:18 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Except that once it becomes "Taxed", It's no longer yours.

We live in a world where it is not ours until AFTER we receive our tax refund.

We pay before we are assessed and hope we have pre-paid enough.

Million dollar marxists insist WE are not paying enough.

They set up secular foundations to pressure Western governments to expand social programs, not to pay for those social programs out of the bounty of the private trusts they established and sit on the board of.

And politicians who are not even elected may appeals to the 50% who pay no income tax and tell them what they will RECEIVE if they only will vote for candidate XYC and DNC Party.

The new Democrat push is to raise the level at which we pay into Social Security and finally eliminate the social security contributions from those who earn so little. Making it an outright redistribution tax.

There is no charity in forced taxation, no matter what that no count Obama says about being his brother's keeper. I've seen pictures of the shack his brother lives in.

13 posted on 10/25/2010 4:19:00 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange

Usually they seem to rely a lot on “judge not lest ye be judged.” I’ve seen the others referenced in the article, but that one has to comprise 80-90% of the leftist quotes to scripture.

Notably they take that quote out of context all the time too.
Not only that, it's an oft-distorted form of Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37.

There's even a bit of Scripture paraphrased in the USSR's constitution, of all documents! The supposed paragon of atheistic society.

Article 18 (1918 constitution). The Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic declares labour to be the duty of all citizens of the Republic, and proclaims the slogan: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat!'

ARTICLE 12 (1936 constitution). In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
This is of course a distortion of 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

14 posted on 10/25/2010 5:09:22 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"The whole “Eat The Rich” mentality is unbiblical. It is the socialist-anarchist mantra."

True. But governments helping the poor IS biblical. There has to be balance. You don't bankrupt the country helping the poor. You don't help the poor by tearing down the rich. Nowhere does scripture call for equality of material possessions. But it does call for us to help the poor. Scripture doesn't call for us to do it wastefully or without incentives to work, or specify how much. And scripture specifically says the poor are always with you. We can't eliminate the poor. But both individuals and governments are called to help them.

Jer 22:15 Shalt thou reign, because thou closest [thyself] in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, [and] then [it was] well with him? Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then [it was] well [with him: was] not this to know me? saith the LORD.

Pro 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.

Dan 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

Socialism is one extreme. No mercy to the poor is the other and is equally bad. "We the People" are rulers of this country. And we need to heed what the Lord told the kings of old, if we wish to continue to rule.

15 posted on 10/25/2010 5:21:52 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I agree with you. I used to be too extreme and did not believe in any kind of government assistance.

One day my Mother told me a true story. Back in the early 1900s my Uncle happened to notice a woman out in her yard cooking turnips in a large pot. She had six children.

It turned out her husband had died and left them penniless. That is all they had to eat, not even any bread. Back then there was very little welfare but there was a tiny bit. My Uncle drove them to the county seat and they applied for some kind of relief. The county paid them $20 a month, not a lot but it was enough for them to live on.

I also had a distant cousin who died of appendicitis. Her Father was crippled in a logging accident. Their relatives were not wealthy either but helped them enough that they got by OK. The problem was they had no money.

When she got sick, the local hospital would not take her because they were broke. Finally Baptist Hospital in Pensacola agreed to take her. Unfortunately she died on the way. She basically died from poverty.


16 posted on 10/25/2010 5:38:27 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

If you think about the cousin that died of appendicitis. The government would probably have come out better if they had paid for the operation and she had gone back to work and paid taxes.

Not that they should do that every time, because it would create Moral hazard, but on a case by case basis. And really the government wouldn’t have had to gift the operation. They could have made the operation cost into a loan to her and got it back plus taxes.


17 posted on 10/25/2010 6:15:59 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
There are (or WERE) plenty of charitable organizations and benevolent orders that cared for the poor and orphans.

It is NOT the role of government to relieve your own personal financial obligation to the poor.

When Barack Obama tells us it is required by Christ to support Obamacare, he is PUSHING his own false interpretation of scripture on people of ALL faiths which is CLEARLY unconstitutional. He cannot mandate that I tithe to his particular theological beliefs.

18 posted on 10/26/2010 8:39:57 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"There are (or WERE) plenty of charitable organizations and benevolent orders that cared for the poor and orphans."

There were also from the beginning of this country, governmental programs for the poor. They were at the state and community level. And one of the jobs that kept state judges busy early in our history was making sure that communities did their part and didn't just dump indigents on other communities. Read the history of the poor laws in our country.

"It is NOT the role of government to relieve your own personal financial obligation to the poor."

No, government can not relieve you of your individual responsibility to the poor. However, as the verses I've posted show, government has it's own responsibility to the poor.

When Barack Obama tells us it is required by Christ to support Obamacare, he is PUSHING his own false interpretation of scripture on people of ALL faiths which is CLEARLY unconstitutional. He cannot mandate that I tithe to his particular theological beliefs.

I wasn't aware that Barack has mentioned Christ very often since becoming president. He seems more focused on Muslims.

The poor is also a civil problem, not just a spiritual problem. Thus Congress, not Obama, can and does mandate that you pay taxes that they then use for pork, waste and yes, to help the poor. It's not a tithe, it's a tax. It's not tithing to a particular theological belief, it's adhering to the civil law as passed by congress.

However, Scripture supports that government can and should do this and that its not your money as soon as a government levies the tax.

If you don't like the government, you can overthrow a government for reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. But we're not there. We have means of non-violent redress which will become apparent Nov 2.

19 posted on 10/26/2010 8:54:58 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
And one of the jobs that kept state judges busy early in our history was making sure that communities did their part and didn't just dump indigents on other communities. Read the history of the poor laws in our country.

Even today cities are bussing their homeless to other cities.

20 posted on 10/26/2010 10:33:05 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

When Barack Obama tells us it is required by Christ to support Obamacare, he is PUSHING his own false interpretation of scripture on people of ALL faiths which is CLEARLY unconstitutional. He cannot mandate that I tithe to his particular theological beliefs.

>>I wasn’t aware that Barack has mentioned Christ very often since becoming president. He seems more focused on Muslims.

Obama’s Campaign-Season Christianity
American Spectator ^ | 9/30/10 | George Neumayr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608310/posts
“[The] precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead—being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me,” he said. He threw in a few more vague-sounding clichés and a paean to religious relativism for good measure, and reassured the lady that “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.”

‘God’s partners in matters of life and death’
Washington Jewish Week ^ | 8/19/09 | Adam Kredo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2320466/posts
President Barack Obama needs some outside help pushing health care reform, and he’s turning to rabbis to get it. In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: “I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform,” the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner. “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” Obama went on to say, according to Moline’s real-time stream.

‘Bearing False Witness’: Obama Tells Religious Leaders Health Care Critics Are Guilty of Sin (audio)
Faith for Health ^ | August 19, 2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2320065/posts
“These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is to look out for each other.”

MSNBC host: Hey, wouldn’t Jesus want us to have universal health care ?
Hot Air ^ | August 13, 2009 | ALLAHPUNDIT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2315664/posts

Code Words (Glenn Beck urges Christians to leave churches that preach “social justice”)
National Review ^ | 03/17/2010 | John Leo
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:02
When Glenn Beck urged Christians to leave churches that preach social justice, he allowed himself to be tripped up by conventional buzzwords of the campus Left. In plain English, “social justice” is a goal of all churches and refers to helping the poor and seeking equality. As a code word, it refers to a controversial package of goals including political redistribution of wealth, gay marriage, and a campaign against “institutional racism,” “classism,” “ableism,” and “heterosexism.” Beck was wildly off base linking “social justice” (of either form) to Communism and Nazism, but he was correct to note that the term is often used as a code. In the words of Peter Wood, head of the National Association of Scholars, “The campus left learned with its promotion of the concept of ‘diversity’ the advantages of packaging hard-core ideology in bland, feel-good terminology.” “Social justice” is one of several terms — others include “dispositions,” “sustainability,” and “cultural competence” — that has been given in-group meanings by the wordsmiths of the cultural Left.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2471480/posts
Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus?
Time.com ^ | March 14, 2010 | Amy Sullivan
When Glenn Beck told listeners of his radio show on March 2 that they should “run as fast as you can” from any church that preached “social or economic justice” because those were code words for Communism and Nazism, he probably thought he was tweaking a few crunchy religious liberals who didn’t listen to the show anyway. Instead he managed to outrage Christians in most mainline Protestant denominations, African-American congregations, Hispanic churches, and Catholics...

Religious Left Rallies for Obamacare’s Final Stand
FrontPage Magazine ^ | Mark D. Tooley
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464783/posts
The Religious and Evangelical Left, plus the Islamic Society of North America and a few others, are making a final Custer-like stand on behalf of much cherished Obamacare. In an ad featured in The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper aimed at congressional staffers, a religious coalition called “Faithful Reform in Health Care” demanded that Congress “complete the task at hand on behalf of the millions who are left out and left behind in our current health care system.”

Would Jesus pray to block health care for needy? (Two bag barf-alert)
Orlando Sentinel ^ | December 24, 2009 | Mike Thomas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2414585/posts
People are praying for many things during this holy season. But perhaps the most unusual request of all comes from religious conservatives, including some in Congress. They staged an Internet “prayercast’’ to block the health-care legislation being voted on today in the Senate. Given that Democrats have the 60 votes lined up to pass it, they may have to call in Benny Hinn to pull off this miracle. How exactly does one pray against health care? ‘Dear Lord, please do not send the downtrodden to the doctor because my taxes will go up and I’ll have to wait in line for my knee replacement.’ Or: ‘Dear God, please don’t give that other family health coverage taxpayers cannot afford so I can keep the Medicare Advantage and drug plan we also cannot afford.’ Or how about a simple: ‘Deliver us from socialism. Amen.’ I certainly do not agree with everything in the health-care bills. But praying against access to medical care right before Christmas? And then claiming God’s political support?

Obama abuses faith office to promote his radical agenda
The American Thinker ^ | October 20, 2009 | Ed Lasky
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2366453/posts
Why has Barack Obama waded into religious waters? His intentions become clearer by the day. He sees every taxpayer dollar, every government office, as a tool to further his political agenda. The prospect of this occurring was presciently recognized by Meghan Clyne in a Weekly Standard article earlier this year when she predicted that Obama would use the Office of Faith-based Initiative as one more “mechanism for nationwide community organizing”. Clyne notes that Obama himself telegraphed his goals back in 2005. In 1995, Obama told the Chicago Reader: ...In every church on Sunday in the African-American community we have this moral fervor; we have energy to burn. But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find ways to channel all this energy into community building. The biggest failure of the Civil Rights Movement was in failing to translate this energy, this moral fervor, into creating lasting institutions and organizational structures...

Did you just hear Kucinich?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2346672/posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Speaking about the need for health care on Fox Business, he quoted Jesus. He reminded us that Jesus said, ... “when I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was sick, did you care for me?”


You need to pay attention to the politicians and the “Christian” rhetoric they preach to push liberal policies as biblical. I cannot be FORCED to tithe to their interpretation of Christian scripture.


21 posted on 10/26/2010 11:21:22 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
In fact the Bible comes out in support of taxes.

Not quite. It merely recognizes that they exist.

22 posted on 10/26/2010 11:23:19 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Ok, but the fact that Obama uses scripture wrongly to push for socialized medicine and equality, does not negate the fact that scripture does tell Kings/governments to care for the poor and needy.

Again, socialism is one extreme. No mercy for the poor is the other extreme and every bit as bad.


23 posted on 10/26/2010 12:13:23 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

You misstate my remarks.

I do not say “no mercy”.

I say the government does not need to provide.

Charity comes from the heart. There is no charity in forced taxation.

When taxes increase you will see a decrease in charitable giving.


24 posted on 10/26/2010 12:27:50 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
There are those that would like to push the problem off entirely onto charitable Christians. But the poor are a civil problem as Thomas Jefferson once noted.

The scriptures I posted earlier, indicate that the Lord expects BOTH governments and individuals to provide. You may be right that one impacts the other, but neither can wash their hands of the poor without consequences.

No one claims paying taxes is charity. Governmental decisions to give to the poor are charity. And such decisions come from the hearts of the citizenry and their elected officials. Again it must be kept in balance.

You could argue as no doubt many have that such governmental charity is not in the enumerated powers, but you would be going against precedents set by the very first congress that provided both charity to indians as well as disaster relief to cities.

25 posted on 10/26/2010 12:57:25 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I despise the welfare mess this country has gotten into as much as anyone. I have personally reported what I thought was food stamp fraud and suspect nothing was ever done about it.

There is another side tho. All one has to do is look at Britain before the Victorian age. Horror stories of the poor were absolutely incredible. Private charities did what they could but they were not even close to enough.

As someone else said, there are extremes on both sides. Right now we are on the extreme side towards Socialism. I want to get the government out of basically being the whole way of life for much of the country but not to the extent that good honest people die because of poverty when it is not necessary.


26 posted on 10/26/2010 1:23:18 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
Our government dole does not serve to benefit the poor. It serves to benefit politicians who promise to protect those on the dole while at the same time KEEPING them as a permanent under class to exploit for votes.

Better to use it as a safety net than as a sole source of sustenance for 3 full generations in a family.

In the 1980s, there was a stunt pulled where some liberals took some American homeless to the Soviet Union to discuss the plight of the homeless. The audience asked how long they had been homeless and hearing answers of “5 years” caused the audience to get up out of their seats and leave.

And there are people who are much better off than the homeless who refuse to contribute to their own livelihood. Opening the doors to the world as a welfare state will not "end" poverty in America. But it will benefit the politicians who need to reach new voting blocs and they sour their reception with those who've been here paying taxes.

A safety net is not a residence. It's not a place to pitch tent. It's why I argue against any drug legalization efforts AT LEAST until the safety net is removed. I will not be exploited by those who wish to cause their own unemployable condition.

27 posted on 10/26/2010 1:48:20 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson