Posted on 04/26/2011 6:29:39 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
A coalition of evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, mainline Protestant, African-American, and Latino Christian leaders will announce a new coalition on Wednesday to fight cuts to anti-poverty programs and congressional plans to make those cuts even deeper.
A joint statement released by the coalition—and signed by 32 leaders—states:
“As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.orlandosentinel.com ...
I should add by government I mean local government who can best be held accountable by the population on how tax dollars are spent. Having the Federal Government in charge of anti poveryt programs is like having them in charge of schools.
There is a legitimate role for society to hold in caring and helping the most vulnerable
Society does not equal Government.
Having the government budget monies to help the truly needy is not anti Conservative or anti Christian.
Yes it is on both counts. You're countenancing the use of stolen money. There's absolutely nothing "christian" about that. Theft is theft no matter why it's done or who is doing it.
Given the choice between my tax dollars going to help a pregnant women get the healthful food she needs for her baby and my tax dollars going to bail out banks I’ll take the former over the latter.
That's a false choice. You shouldn't be forced by Government to fund either.
The problem with public funds to private religious charities is that many of them are evangelistic as well as charitable in their mission. To accept public monies would probably require them to compromise their message in that regard.
You left out some of my post in your response to it.
“But such aid should be temporary and the private sector should be the ones adminstering the programs. With the hope that at some point no government aid will be needed to help the poor.”
Government aid should be to provide a true safety net in emergency situations.
The biggest problem I have with government aid is that it does a very bad job of moving people out of poverty and in providing the most help for the least cost.
But local community help funded partially by taxes voted on by local people and under the oversight of the citizens to make sure it is used to help the most vulnerable is not something I am against.
I know and the goal should be to make government aid or accepting government monies a last resort. Ideally such aid should be from local sources not federal and should be decided upon by citizens who vote for how they want their tax dollars spent.
If the money to pay for it is extracted from the taxpayer then it’s not voluntary charity and is therefore decidedly un-Christian.
Did you miss where I said citizens should vote on how the tax dollars for aid are spent? That spending should be overseen by the voters? That it should be used as a last resort in true emergency situations? That the goal should be to move people off of aid?
Private help should be the first resort and is the best use of resources. The reality is that private charity can not do it all. So yes I do believe there is a place for local communities to provide the aid they choose to provide as decided by the voters when private charities are stretched to their limits.
So if 51% of the population votes for theft it's ok? Is that your position?
That spending should be overseen by the voters?
Don't you mean the elected representatives chosen by the voters? Kind of exactly what we have now?
That it should be used as a last resort in true emergency situations?
As defined by whom?
That the goal should be to move people off of aid?
Ah, the old ends justify the means argument. Human history is paved with corpses and written in blood because of that kind of thinking.
So yes I do believe there is a place for local communities to provide the aid they choose to provide
What if I 'choose' not to participate in your little scheme? What then? What if I think your plan is stupid or pointless and I don't want to 'give'? What do you do then?
You're countenancing theft.
Period.
No I am not. Taxes are not theft unless they are levied without representation. If LOCAL tax payers agree to use local tax money to give last resort aid to the poor people in their community how is that theft? Would you say the same about taxes for other services that you might not directly benefit from such as libraries or parks?
Private is best but I do see a role for limited LOCAL government funded aid when private charities can not do it all themselves.
Yes, you are. You just don't want to admit it.
If LOCAL tax payers agree to use local tax money to give last resort aid to the poor people in their community how is that theft?
It's not voluntarily given and it's taken under the threat of force. That's theft.
Would you say the same about taxes for other services that you might not directly benefit from such as libraries or parks?
Yes.
Face it, you're countenancing theft. You just don't have a problem with it because you agree with why it's being stolen. That's how you rationalize it. It doesn't make it right of course, but it salves your conscience enough for you to live with it.
But theft is theft. It doesn't matter how many people say it's ok or what the booty is being stolen for, it's still theft. There's no taxing jurisdiction anywhere in the country that gets a 100% approval. And if just one person doesn't want his money taken from him at the point of a Government gun, it's theft.
That's the fact.
Very wise words from a very good man.
“It’s not voluntarily given and it’s taken under the threat of force. That’s theft”
What threat of force? Putting it up before the populace for a vote is threat of force? Since when?
So taxes are theft unless ???? Help me out here. Since when was it ever argued that a tax had to have 100% approval to be non theft?
What bout fire service, police, local schools (a dream I know wihile Fed Dept of Ed exists)road improvements, water and sewer, drainage, new roads and disaster response and relief? Do you think any of these are always seen as being good use of tax dollars by 100% of the population?
Fine argue that you don’t believe in any government money being spent to help poor people but to argue that taxes must be approved by 100% of the population is nonsense.
And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profits me nothing.
-1 Corinthians 13:3
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.