Skip to comments.Jesus would oppose the Paul Ryan budget ("Jim Wallis" types strike again)
Posted on 04/11/2012 2:08:30 PM PDT by C19fan
I fully respect the Catholic faith and sincerity of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and do not question that he believes his budget is consistent with his faith, as he stated in an excellent story in The Hill. But, with all due respect, I must suggest that Jesus would oppose the Ryan budget. Jesus did not teach government preferences for the most wealthy, cruel punishment for the most poor, attacks on programs that benefit women, decimating cuts that hurt the poorest children and the sanctification of greed in economics. Ron Paul and Paul Ryan may believe in Ayn Rand and Austrian economists, but Jesus taught a much different ethic: those who have the most should not game the system to get more but should help those who have the least, including selling their possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
So I guess he missed the part about Render on to Caesar what is Caesar and render on to God what is Gods.
I give to the poor with free will and make sure they get it.
The government is not the place to tithe.
Jesus never advocated theft. Period. Didn’t think too much of the tax collectors either.
People are not entitled to another man’s labor. That is simply slavery. It doesn’t matter how slavery is implemented whether through votes or decree. It is fundamentally wrong.
“THOU SHALT NOT STEAL”
Burn in hell wallis.
“seeming to confuse charity with confiscation”
There’s a difference between confusion and just being an idiot.
Brent’s an idiot.
None of Brent’s tired slogans address Ryan’s argument:
‘Ryan made a moral case for his budget, saying that the government shouldnt be responsible for lifting its citizens out of poverty rather, that its the obligation of the citizens themselves to be societys caretakers.
‘Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, thats how we advance the common good, by not having Big Government crowd out civic society, but by having enough space in our communities so that we can interact with each other, and take care of people who are down and out in our communities, Ryan said.
‘Those principles are very, very important, and the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenants of Catholic social teaching, means dont keep people poor, dont make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty, out into a life of independence.’
Amazing how many people can read the gospels and not pick up that the FIRST thing Jesus opposed was intellectual dishonesty.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
“Jesus did not teach government preferences for the most wealthy, cruel punishment for the most poor, attacks on programs that benefit women, decimating cuts that hurt the poorest children and the sanctification of greed in economics.”
Of course, this is not what Republicans or Paul Ryan are teaching, anymore than it is what Democrats claim to teach. There is so much wrong with this screed that it is difficult to know how to approach it. First of all, from a non religious aspect, tax policies that favor economic growth and development are not programs that favor the just the rich. They provide opportunity for the poor, the middle class, graduating seniors, graduating college students, women. Redistribution of wealth, on the other hand, has limited gains, and those are more often than not subject to the diminishing returns of the economy they damage. Though the poor are always faced with greater obstacles in the way of economic liberty, their odds are always better when there are many people controlling the wealth, as in a healthy Capitalist system. Redistribution always means bigger government, and eventually fewer people controlling the wealth, corresponding to less access to wealth by the poor, and less wealth to access. In the end, as always, what the Democrat/Socialists are proposing in redistribution, insignificant as it is for helping the poor, will only hurt the economy and the poor. This isn’t a time to spin socialist dogma. It is a time to save our economy for the rich and poor.
A healthy economy will do more to help unemployed women than all the redistribution schemes halfwit Democrats can dream up, including free contraception. The only war on women is the one the left is waging in its destruction of our economy. It is no different for women than it is for anyone else, more wealth in the market place means more jobs and more wealth distributed without the government acting as middle man.
As for Christian charity, liberals are fond of reminding us that Jesus told the rich man to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor. I don’t see many rich Democrats doing that. Compared to rich Republicans, they don’t seem interested in charity at all, unless it is giving someone else’s money away through tax schemes. Democrats have no moral superiority in this department. They could learn a lot from real Christians. ...But, redistribution of wealth wasn’t the real concern that Jesus was voicing. He was putting a good man in the position of having to give up what he had to follow him. That was the extra the man needed to obtain what he really wanted. While it might be harder for the rich to part with their goods, it isn’t a problem that we are all faced with. What are we willing to give up to follow Christ? The answer for all of us should be “Everything!” There are many poor people who refuse to take that step.
The above should always be balanced by the time Jesus instructed Judas to leave the woman who was pouring expensive oil on his feet alone. Judas, a forerunner to modern day Marxists and Democrats wanted to sell the perfume, and give the proceeds to the poor, good little redistributionist that he was. Obviously Jesus understood that the woman’s relationship with God didn’t require that. Remember who Satan entered then, and ask if he isn’t behind those who want to redistribute other people’s money today. It is greed, plundering, and when abused by a corrupt government, as all big governments are, it is destructive to us all. Jesus has nothing to do with liberation theology, and Christians should concern themselves with what they have, and what they should be doing to follow Christ. Stop lusting after the rich man’s money.
Strange how the Democrats never tire of telling us this is not a Christian nation. They have gone to great lengths to make it otherwise, but when it comes to confusing Socialism and redistribution with Christian charity, they are gung ho to pound our collective conscience with misdirected nonsense.
Here we have an example of genuine ignorance. This writer fails to see that the government should have a zero role in how individuals spend their money. Confiscating money because you think someone is too rich, and then distributing it to whomever you believe needs the help is corrupt, or as it is with the Democrats, redistributing the money to cronies and to "buy" votes.
Such a policy denies the taxpayers being robbed of the opportunity and freedom to help those that they see fit to help. Most charity in this country comes from generous taxpayers. The writer fails to see or to proclaim or to live what Jesus taught.
How about Jesus would oppose living beyond your means?
Jesus would oppose borrowing enormous sums of money and expecting your kids and grandkids to pay it back.
Jesus would oppose rewarding doctors for viewing living people as a budget item rather than a patient in order to save a few dollars.
Jesus would oppose 54 million abortions when instead there could have been 54 million adoptions.
Jesus would oppose those who think they are righteous and godly to blame the rich for all the problems in their lives they themselves are more responsible for than anyone else.
Jesus would oppose those who instead of being peacemakers, love to pit one group of people against another for their own benefit.
Forced charity is not charity, the same as forced lovemaking is not lovemaking.