Ed Schultz: You know who’d support the public option? Jesus
posted at 7:14 pm on September 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
A reading from the gospel according to Barack, and not for the first time either. I get a kick out of it, partly because it’s healthy to see how shameless religious politicking looks when it comes from the other side and partly because I think the Christian ethos points more towards his side of the argument on this one. Yes, granted, there’s nothing in the Bible about caring for the sick by rendering unto Caesar, but if it’s a choice between that and letting millions of people go without treatment, what’s the more Christian-y option? Schultz’s point about democracy is interesting, too. It’s one thing to have Herod sending down diktats about taxes for his personal policy whims, but if a majority of the public supports taxes as a way of covering the uninsured, isn’t that a form of private charity albeit through a public mechanism? And if the answer to that is, “No, because those in favor should just start their own private institution devoted to covering the uninsured and donate to it voluntarily,” then what, if any, divine repercussions should there be for people who don’t donate to it? Is Jesus A-OK with you letting people suffer without care even if you have spare income you could offer them? Inquiring atheists want to know!
FYI, the line about Jesus supporting the public option isn’t in this clip. Watch Newsbusters’s edit from earlier in the show for that.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blowback
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
You said a lot of it first. Ditto.
I think every Christian here doesn’t equate charity through forced taxation with charity through will. And Jesus was concerned about the will. If you don’t want to give up the Widow’s mite, then having someone take it from you is theft, even as the converse may be greed if that mite is not essential to you.
This idea of government theft is even more correct today, because we don’t have an autocratic government but a democracy, and the people taking from you will be your neighbors who voted YES on that taking. There’s a minor commandment around here somewhere about not coveting your neighbor’s goods, but I can’t find it…
unclesmrgol on September 3, 2009 at 8:05 PM
By that logic, the government should kill everyone who does not give all of their money to the Church. (Acts 5:1-10)
pedestrian on September 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Ed Schitz is not worth the oxygen he uses
bill30097 on September 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Honestly; can we not get a ninja team of asskickers out there? There’s a bunch of sh1theads in desperate need of it.
Midas on September 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Ah the feigned aloofness. How becoming.
If I could talk to Jesus I’d love to learn all about what he thinks. Heck, If I could read anything he actually wrote himself I’d do that too. The fact that people like you think they can tell me what Jesus thinks is what turns me off.
Scrappy on September 3, 2009 at 8:07 PM
NOTE that Christ commanded THE INDIVIDUAL TO ACT INDIVIDUALLY…
He didn’t ask doctors to go form an HMO, take billions of dollars from the taxpayers (without their individual consents) and to then salary staffs and render “health care” by dribs and drabs.
In other words, Christ’s ongoing advice and counsel is as to INDIVIDUAL ACTION. NOT GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS/ACTIONS to bypass or replace individual charity.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:07 PM
The Left is using whatever it can exploit to try to wedge their way under the tent. They’re USING (as in, exploiting) ANYthing and everything. Today it’s Christ.
Which is really awful for them, not for Christ, not for Christianity. Christ’s work — redemption for the sins of man — truly upsets the evil and the evil continues to throw spears and such. Christ, however, already won.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Wrong! Christ didn’t found liberation theology as you are trying to state. Jesus spoke of charity, giving of the self who has to those who have not; returning to God the bounty given by giving of those riches to those who don’t. Jesus never said anything about taking from government.
Your offensive argument falls flat.
I give to charities–real ones that feed the poor rather than pushing for some government plan–and never do I take those gifts from my taxes. I ignore them at tax time; that’s between me and my God.
To try claiming Jesus required anything other than charity from a person shows an ignorance of Scripture on your part. And, too, makes you offensive to me.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM
:)
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Governments always do a lousy job at charity and benevolence. The money never gets to the people who really need it. (Why are the same children starving in Africa 50 years later?)
The government needs to get out of the benevolence business, education, and health care. Leave charity to the charitable, education to the states, and health care to the doctors.
Mojave Mark on September 3, 2009 at 8:16 PM
How absurd. If they wanted to “care for the sick”
They would do it.
It’s simple. Who is sick? Come here, we will pay.
They don’t do it that way.
It does not take a bill over a thousand pages long to “care for the sick”
The Obamas…kennedy…Pelosi…blah blah..They make enough money to “care for the sick”
Show me where they have CARED FOR THE SICK.
The bible is very clear about false prophets and by their fruits I shall know them.
I discern.
bridgetown on September 3, 2009 at 8:16 PM
a) Look at who is President, and look at who controls both chambers of Congress. Then tell me why that overwhelmingly Democratic crew doesn’t have the cajones to pass the legislation over the backs of the cold dead Republicans?
b) The public option includes things detestable to many conservatives, including public funding for abortion. It is not charity to force me to give my money to fund abortions — it is theft. It is not charity to force me to give so much money that I can’t take care of my own family — that is theft.
Again, look at Mr. Obama’s taxes (3%) and Saint Teddy’s taxes (0.5%) and tell me these people were pulling their load when some of us in the middle class are paying upwards of 30% for just the healthcare we have now.
Mr. Kennedy didn’t have to do medicare — he had his own special Senatorial plan. Obama will never have to do medicare, because he’s covered forever by the Presidential plan.
When all these people are subject to the same plan as the rest of us, then let them come talk. Until then, I don’t want them reaching into my pocket to build something like the VA or the Indian Health Service for me, because I can guarantee you we won’t be getting the Senatorial or Presidential plans — or anything remotely like them.
unclesmrgol on September 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM
It still wouldn’t be their right. Something about a workman is worthy of his hire.
chemman on September 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Amen
bridgetown on September 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Does this mean that Ed and the other “progressives” will finally allow manger scenes at city halls?
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 3, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Wha!!! Huh!!! Jesus was a capitalist!?!
Cody Baker on September 3, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I do take those gifts from my taxes when possible. I itemize, and by doing so I am able to give an extra 20%. I’m certainly a better judge of what is good charity than the government, which gives out food stamps so drunks can buy liquor at the grocery store.
unclesmrgol on September 3, 2009 at 8:21 PM
When did Barack suddenly become concerned with what the bible says. Little late and a little short, isn’t he?
Hypocrite!
GarandFan on September 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Out of every trillion dollars governments spend, $600 billion stays with the government to make its form of ‘charity’ happen.
I want to hear a liberal defend that expenditure. God asks only ten percent and He doesn’t do it at the point of a gun.
I need to hear a liberal defend that; I want a lib to tell me why government isn’t giving 90% of its revenue to the poor.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Yes. Remember those commandments against stealing and against coveting your neighbors’ goods? And, again, the Good Samaritan didn’t exhort his fellow workers to overthrow the system…
unclesmrgol on September 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Well, that’s certainly one way of looking at Christ, as also God the Father.
Capitalism DOES focus on individual action and individual effort equated with individual ownership of (responsibility for) the “reward” or result (whether profit or loss, it rests with the individual who engaged in the action that generated the profit or loss).
I’m not (AT ALL) attempting to move Christ into some economic model (for any reason, political or otherwise), but, the facts are that the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN perspective of what is justice and value for individual life (and evaluation of the individual based upon individual action and morality/ethics) is what has shaped our United States of America.
Also where our nation’s strength exists.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Hey, that’s good! I just ignore why I’m able to gift, for it comes from after taxes. When I get a refund, I, too, have more to give to my church.
Good feeling, isn’t it?
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Yes, unclesmrgol, you’re right. I really enjoy your comments, by the way (also Liam’s).
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:26 PM
As well stated as I have seen in a long number of years.
chemman on September 3, 2009 at 8:27 PM
The wise man (or woman) should witness just once — twice to verify if there’s lack of confidence and faith — someone acting maliciously in usery of Christ and then conclude that it’s a process of falsehood at work.
Obama or anyone can claim anything they find useful to their goals (however corrupt the goals may be by purpose) but the proof of the motive or state of the soul is in the “fruit”.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Not bad. I would say leave education to the parents but then I home schooled my children and they are home schooling theirs.
chemman on September 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Thank you.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:33 PM
chemman on September 3, 2009 at 8:36 PM
These GOONS know that alot of newley minted politicos are on the market. They are trying to act like a chamelion to draw the politically uninformed rural Christians. BEWARE!! not to loose our constituents to these GOONS!
sonnyspats1 on September 3, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Oh AP – I know it probably amuses you to stir this particular pot but it’s actually kind of offensive when non-believers try to explain to us what our beliefs are.
The simplest way to illustrate your wrongheaded thinking is to point to Mother Theresa’s example; she didn’t lobby the government to do something, she rolled up her sleeves and did it herself.
As Christians we have a responsibility to help others and, in doing so, reflect Christ’s love for us. Delegating that responsibility to the government is not the same thing.
landshark on September 3, 2009 at 8:42 PM
I tend to inhabit alternate realities, I’m pretty sure that one was from a wasteland…
Charity is not only an act of our conscience, it is damned efficient. Those running charities do so out of the actual good they want to deliver, and so do the best they can to cut costs. They cannot compete against a subsidized insurance system… it is telling that it took WWII handing over perks to get people who would normally retire via the new Social Security to put in place the subsidizing of health insurance. That was normally too expensive to be run for anyone but executives at companies, and then a sideline perk… this Nation once did have a good, local run set of institutions that took care of the poor via charity. Growing up at the lower end of middle class and having relatives that most would define as ‘poor’, I got to see, first hand, that even the ‘poor’ will sacrifice a little extra to charity so that others worse off than them will be able to NOT depend on government. That builds society and our common culture by utilizing the good works and conscience to empower those who want to help and are willing to sacrifice to actually do that and help them to survive while doing so.
Government is about bottom line cost.
Our fellow citizens that seek to help want the good work done so that the poor can do better for themselves. And even a little bit better allows them to give just a little to help those less well off. Letting government do it for you is the slackers way out… pay a bureaucrat who doesn’t care about more than his job to do it, inefficiently, for you… without care nor a giving spirit. You cannot force that from government workers. Check your IRS office for that. Its where you will have your liberty extracted for you to soothe your conscience so you don’t have to care about the poor anymore. Don’t complain about the society you get in return, for it will not have a giving spirit, not have our common humanity in mind, and will only care about you so long as you are worth keeping around. You get what you pay for… and if you want the bottom line, then best remember that you get a bottom line, too.
ajacksonian on September 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM
if it’s a choice between that and letting millions of people go without treatment, what’s the more Christian-y option?
For a dead on explanation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on health care one need only read Ed’s post from yesterday in which he cite’s the Bishop from Ohio (I forget the Bishop’s name at the moment). After reading the Bishop’s comments and explanation I find it hard to believe anyone wonders what the church has to say about the issue.
My main point though, what’s interesting here is this: I’ve read of a number of individuals now claim the public option is God’s will. But those same people are generally gung ho for taxpayer funded abortions. Which the US Council of Catholic Bishops has already condemned and threatened to shut down every Catholic hospital in America if ever forced to perform abortions. And I thank God that I don’t think they are bluffing. So apparently God wants a public option but He must also want half of the hospitals in the US closed too, because that’s what many of these people are working for. Interesting.
Goldenavatar on September 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM
You do a fine job of demonstrating why atheists should avoid discussing other people’s religions.
In short: No.
Charity is what you chose to do, not what others force you to do. Christianity doesn’t promise a Heaven on Earth, that’s what the Leftists religions (like marxism) promise. Christianity promises Heaven in Heaven.
The Good Samaritan was good because he chose to help one man, not because he put together a government program to help everyone attacked by bandits. Good people help those who they can.
When you start using the government to take from others so you can spend the money as you see fit, you are acting like the robbers, not the Good Samaritan.
Greg Q on September 3, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I only want to know one thing .Why in the hell do these so called conservative go on this network Msnbc.They never learn that this bottom feeding so called news station is out to get them.Who cares what Ed or any other piece of trash on that station says .
thmcbb on September 3, 2009 at 8:53 PM
If Jesus was such a Liberal, then why is any mention of him so suppressed by the Liberals?
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 3, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Allah is just bringing up a valid point, and Christianity is supposed to be a religion of reason. I don’t think any of us here want this kind of coercive system, but do you have a religious argument against it that couldn’t also be used, say, against a publicly funded military or police force?
Count to 10 on September 3, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Huh…I never knew Jesus was inclined to pass off healing people to the government. I always thought he did it himself.
James on September 3, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Hippo-crit!!!
chickasaw42 on September 3, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Definitions of ‘Liberal’ aside, its generally because there is something about their behavior that religion tends to ostracize.
Count to 10 on September 3, 2009 at 9:00 PM
He’s like Christmas, to come around once in a while as needed, like a tree with lights and baubles for every December 25th.
Since you’re obviously guilty of wrongthink, you need to surrender to authorities. When the expected verdict is returned, know you are not eligible for Obama’s gift of free health care. You will be sentenced to pay for your own.
Without appeal, of course.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Didn’t you know? He was secretly a Roman paid by the emperor.
Book of Pelosi, 5:7.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Christian charity is dependent upon the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit.
Anyone can wax philosophical about Jesus; if you don’t know Him, it’s like talking about the friend of a friend. It’s all hypotheticals. When you give your soul to Jesus, He sends the Spirit, along with the gifts of the Spirit.
The Spirit equips the Body of Christ unto different specialties, talents, and concerns. I may not feel strongly about “health care for all”, but God will ensure others do (and most likely not through government). So, while I’m giving as I’m led, God will see to it that others build and fund the hospital.
That’s why God “loves a cheerful giver”. A great “secret” of Christianity is that sacrificial giving feels joyful in Christ, not obligatory, not painful, and not full of pride. It feels like you’re giving just as you were called: some to the sick, others to the poor, others to children…but as we are led.
Ed Schultz does not get this. Ed says, “Hey, I know this guy named Jesus? Yeah, one time…I mean, I heard one time, He said you should all give your money for universal health care. Yeah, that’s what I heard He said.”
Not the way it works, Ed. Sorry. So not.
Grace_is_sufficient on September 3, 2009 at 9:08 PM
You know, you people that think Jesus was a pu$$y really crack me up.
Now, I’m not a believer in the holy version of Jesus, but I think the historical figure existed, was a warrior, and probably was crucified for his beliefs. HE was a martyr for beliefs, not other peoples sins. That’s my take on him.
I don’t think for a minute that he’d think it was OK to sit around on your fat as$es expecting others to pick up your damned slack, and when the government gets oppressive he used his very life to show the people what government does best, giving them the opportunity to change their own circumstances.
Not being back there, 2k years ago, I can’t say if his sacrifice actually had any political implications, it sure took religiously, but the idea is there. Fight for what is right, even if it costs you your life. The “christian” thing to do is not enable people that CAN do for themselves, the xtian thing to do is make it possible so everybody who is able has the opportunity to do for themselves, and help those that can’t however you are able to. (As in private help, not the damned government). In doing so you may be saving uncounted generations from further abuse and giving them that freedom…kind of like how our soldier warriors have done for us time and time again and died in the process.
Amazingly, that’s what this country is all about, and that’s what these liberal pieces of CRAP hate most about this country. Tit for tat, I hate them more.
Spiritk9 on September 3, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Why is Ed Schultz trying to impose his morality on me?
doctor horton on September 3, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Yes you are right. But in a way it is not just “individual” action but corporate action.
For instance Christ via the Church commanded all doctors to care for all people regardless of their ability to pay.
Christianity is not about individualism. For instance we cannot go about interpreting everything about Christianity for ourselves..everyone with different interpretations.. That is the protestant model and it has led to tens of thousands of differing sects and widespread confusion and ineffectiveness.
The Holy Scriptures clearly show that there is a line of authority(Bishop/Priest/Deacon) and the Orthodox Church has the unchanged Holy Tradition in a line of succession directly back to the Apostles and Christ Himself.
Look..it is a sad but true fact that today,here, individual charity is not enough.
I wish it were. I wish this whole country was Orthodox Christian and payed tithes of 10%. Nobody would be lacking their necessities.
But it’s a fact that these braindead and spiritually dead, Anti-Christ Humanist masses, live in a culture of selfishness and thoughtlessness.
It’s all about ME and “survival of the fittest”.
If nobody made them pay taxes they would never give a dime to anyone at all.
I pay 30%+ of my income in taxes(which historically is unheard of in any culture), but if I’m going to pay these ridiculous rates, I want it to go to charitable causes and help the poor and sick. I don’t want it all going to the military(of which only a small portion actually gets to where it was supposedly going) and I don’t want it going to these crooks pockets.
MaximusConfessor on September 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM
What’s the more christian-y otion? Not turning an excellent health care system into Canada’s. The help you give the uninsured doesn’t outweigh the negative effects on the currently insured. Its negative effects might be a litle less direct, but there’s nothing Christian about ignoring long term effects.
red26 on September 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Socialism/Marxism has killed more people and caused more misery than any other form of government. Socialized medicine here in the U.S. will result in massive misery if implemented, but not for the political class, because they are more equal than we are.
stefano1 on September 3, 2009 at 9:56 PM
No but being forced into it isn’t any different. It’s not coming from the heart. He’s wants peoples love for him to be the driving force for helping people in need which is what Christians try to do. Being forced to isnt going to make you any “A-Okayer”. He wants us to help others because we love him and should love others as we love ourselves. Ed Shultz doesn’t know Christ or the love that he spoke about, so I don’t even know why people take this seriously. He’s one of the most bitter liberal commentators on the national scene. He’s being disingenuous.
jawkneemusic on September 3, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Parable of the Good Samaritan. Private Charity.
Jorge Bonilla on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Doc Zero in a GreenRoom article is quite concise:
This is the secular analog to Allahpundit’s “Jesus question”. When do “rights” become so intrusive to others that they destroy individual initiative and individual responsibility? Jesus was all about individual initiative and responsibility. Churches exist to channel those qualities, not to destroy them, and the periods of time when the Church lost track of that fact were among our darkest. Now, when Government wants to do the same thing, we have people claiming “Yes, Jesus would take from the rich and give to the poor, and therefore our Government should too.”
Hooey. I’ll say it again: hooey.
unclesmrgol on September 3, 2009 at 10:41 PM
They pulled the ten commandments off of the court walls and they expect me to believe them when they say “This is what Jesus would have done”?
It’s government healthcare, y’all kicked Jesus out of it when you threw the government into it.
Ingenue on September 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM
You know who’s headed for hell? The Democrat party!
JellyToast on September 3, 2009 at 10:59 PM
2 Thes. Chap 3, vs. 10
daesleeper on September 3, 2009 at 11:00 PM
That verse seems to me to be rather ‘individualistic’ in responsibility, as opposed to, corporate.
daesleeper on September 3, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Special Ed should take up Bible study.
That is, if he can comprehend it.
Cr4sh Dummy on September 3, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Oh Ed no wonder your Air America show tanked. My Bible siferin is basic at best and even I can offer up a rebuttal to “Air Head Ed”.
The Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25)is a narrative attributed to Jesus. The five “wise” virgins provided for themselves bringing additional oil for their lamps and were allowed to join in the festive occasion. The other five “foolish” virgins were not prepared, and their oil has run out. They tried to borrow oil from the others. But the others refuse to share, saying that there would not be enough. The virgins with empty lamps are unable and go out into the darkness and join in festivities and were locked out and told to gaurd the gates from the outside.
Another verse comes to mind condeming fathers for not providing care for their wife and children. I’ll look it up and post it.
Joe the Signman on September 4, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Government is the church of the religion of Liberalism. Liberals have no problem quoting scripture from another religion as long as it can be used to get the result they want… They each want to play God. Some want to be the only god THEY answer to themselves, while others want to be the god to which all of humanity, animal life, and plant life must bow. Too bad the ignorant fools don’t recognize it for what it is… Them doing the evil deeds of whatever devils exist.
Rugged Individual on September 4, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Got it!!
Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Very strong statement in my humble opinion. A person that shuns his responsibility to take care of his own has disavowed Christianity. “Worse than an unbeliever” Those who believe are saved by His grace those who do not believe are saved through His judgments. However, this person is worse than a unbeliever and beyond being even judged for salvation. I bet others that have better Bible understanding can provide more.
Joe the Signman on September 4, 2009 at 12:55 AM
It’s in the Old Islamic Testament…the Book of Obama, chapter 23, verses 7-8, “…and the Nazarean called Jesus prayed aloud for public funding of abortions….”
olesparkie on September 4, 2009 at 4:07 AM
I always find it hilarious when a follower of Satan like this guy tells us what Our Lord would do. Rot in hell Ed.
Jeff from WI on September 4, 2009 at 4:41 AM
On point!
Jeff from WI on September 4, 2009 at 4:42 AM
Jesus did say we’re supposed to take care of the poor.
He did NOT say we’re supposed to confiscate other people’s money to do it with.
Squiggy on September 4, 2009 at 5:44 AM
Would Jesus hold the gun when the IRS comes to take your money?
Why don’t we at least do this thing honestly.
Let us go in groups to our neighbor’s homes(especially the ones who have “more” ) and demand payment. If they don’t have money we can take their jewelry and furniture and sell it to help the poor.
Did Jesus demand the government of his day provide health care, food, and clothing for all? No? Didn’t think so.
CWforFreedom on September 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM
MaximusConfessor on September 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
I guess you are right. Jesus had Peter found his church.
So I agree with you that the Federal Government should give all the money to the Catholic to fund Health care.
And since we can’t establish A religion maybe we should expand it to “other” faith based organizations.
Great idea.
barnone on September 4, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Your descriptions of your Angry White Jesus are highly entertaining. No doubt he was born in a double-wide manger and watched chariots race every sunday afternoon too.
simplesimon on September 4, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Hell would be living amongst morbidly obese teutonic folk who eat cheese curds for breakfast.
simplesimon on September 4, 2009 at 8:47 AM
“but if it’s a choice between that and letting millions of people go without treatment, what’s the more Christian-y option?”
“If” it were just that choice I suppose you might be correct, but it’s not just that choice. That’s the, “we must have the public option or they will be dying in the streets” argument. There are plenty of other possibilities.
metalguy22 on September 4, 2009 at 8:54 AM
II think this wonderful article, which I found on ChronWatch.com a few years ago, answers Allahpundit’s questions:
***********************************************************
“Was Christ a Democrat – No Way”
Written by Kevin Stone
Sunday, August 22, 2004
You can always tell when the left is getting desperate, because it suspends its unending war on Christianity and starts talking about Christ and moral values.
With John Kerry faltering in the polls and new questions about his honesty and integrity being raised daily, that tired old gambit is being played with a fresh twist. Though I have yet to locate the origin of this latest farce, a number of liberal writers on political chat sites have begun parroting an assertion that Christ would have voted Democrat. In reality, nothing could be further removed from the truth.
Would Christ have supported abortion? Would Christ have supported sodomy or homosexual ”marriage”? Would Christ have disallowed his Father’s laws from public buildings?
The left primarily predicates its ridiculous assertion on the claim that Christ would have ”advocated helping the poor and the needy.” While this is true on the surface, we must look at the methodology employed by the Democrats toward this end, versus what we know of the teachings of Christ and the laws he defended.
The left believes that it is the role of government corcibly to take money from one individual for redistribution to another as it sees fit. Leftists believe that the ”poor” should be special beneficiaries of public largesse, but what does the Bible say?
Leviticus 19:15
”Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.”
KJV
What this passage is saying is that each person shall be judged on his own merits in justice. Is it just to take money from a hardworking person struggling to support a family and then to give it to a layabout just because he is poor? Indeed it is not. Yet this is how government sees charity. Unlike private charities, many of which strive to give to the deserving and to tie such beneficence to an effort on the part of the beneficiary to improve his situation or to leave off vices that put him in the position of requiring charity, the government simply hands over the money it confiscates from the hard workers to ”the poor.” It ”respects” the poor in special judgment.
When Christ speaks of the ”poor,” he often qualifies that word, including it as part of the phrase ”poor in spirit” (see Matthew 5:3). He is not speaking of the economically deprived, but rather those spiritually put upon. While he advocated voluntary charity, he placed no special requirement on his followers to support people only because they failed to have material wealth. The Apostle Paul, as a matter of fact, expresses that the lazy should not be recipients of special privilege:
Thessalonians 3:10
”For when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” KJV
Most telling, however, is the episode involving the contents of an alabaster box, told in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. To avoid repetition, let’s look at the passage from Matthew:
Matthew 26:7-15
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, ”To what purpose is this waste?
9 ”For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.”
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, ”Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 ”For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
12 ”For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
13 ”Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”
14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
15 And said unto them, ”What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. KJV
Note that Christ holds this woman’s act of devotion to him and her freedom to decide what to do with her own precious possession over the need to feed the poor. He casts aside any socialistic notion of communal property to support the right of the woman to ”waste” (as some of the disciples saw it) her material wealth as she saw fit. One of the disciples however, was so like our modern Democrats that the act kindled a fierce sense of indignation in him. He felt that the woman’s possessions were not her own to do with as she chose and that Christ had no right to be the sole recipient of such a gift, so he struck a deal for thirty pieces of silver to replace what he thought was not the property of the woman to give to Christ, but rather the ”rightful” possession of the ”poor,” and so turned Christ over to those who would kill him.
The member of Christ’s group who would have voted Democrat was not Christ, but rather the arch-traitor, Judas Iscariot.
About the Writer: Kevin Stone is an engineer-inventor, artist, and writer who resides in Dallas, Texas. He enjoys participating on ChronWatch’s Forum and writing occasional op-ed pieces.
sinsing on September 4, 2009 at 9:00 AM
When there is a need, the Christian thing is to roll up your sleeves and get busy meeting that need.
There is nothing Christian in the notion that you should hire someone else, to steal other people’s money, in order to give it to the poor.
MarkTheGreat on September 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I get so sick of this. A man who would readily crucify Jesus today invokes Him to support his crap liberalism. Wonderful.
Grafted on September 4, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Is Jesus A-OK with you letting people suffer without care even if you have spare income you could offer them? Inquiring atheists want to know!
The easiest way to understand it is to grasp the notion that Christianity is not about the sick “being” healed, the hungry “being” fed, etc.
It’s about you healing them and feeding them. If God’s goal was for there simply to “be” no want, the Universe would never have existed at all. It’s your challenge, not something to be passed over with an excuse that your neighbor has more to give.
In short, a government doesn’t have a soul, doesn’t have a consciousness, and is incapable of “goodness” as a character trait. Government takes by force and distributes by whim and rarely accomplishes anything “good” except by a stroke of coincidence or a can’t-miss scenario (like paving a road, and even then…)
Also, it’s not “a choice between that and letting millions of people go without treatment.” It’s letting them go without health insurance. And for most of them – for me in fact – it’s by choice. And it’s a far cry from, say, locking the doors to the hospital after a nuclear blast and saving all the radiation pills for people who have proof of insurance.
That’s not even going into the fact that, as educated humans in the 21st Century, we know for a fact that social programs that redistribute bounty and resources result in everyone starving and dying, in exact proportion to how zealously the programs are implemented. Therefore only a particularly ignorant (read: Liberal) Christian can justify supporting such policies. Did I say I wasn’t going into it? I guess I just did.
In conclusion, there will always be rich and there will always be poor, and since those are terms are relative, many people will always be “both”. The spiritual challenge of the rich is to find it in themselves to sacrifice for the less fortunate. Taking money at gunpoint does nothing to improve the rich man, nor, as we now know from experience, does it improve the body of the poor man.
HitNRun on September 4, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I believe in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Just didn’t know it included my kidneys.
Anil Petra on September 4, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Well of course it’s well known that Jesus walked from Nazareth to Gallilee with petrified palm fronds in hand, to perform those abortions.
And it’s also known that Jesus went to Pontius Pilot, and ordered him to make all tax payers pay for health care, for EVERYONE!!!
Sounds ludicrous? So does this bums statement.
capejasmine on September 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Jesus might support A public option but I doubt He would support this public option with all the corruption that is a part of it. God is not in this…
vulcannomad on September 4, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I don’t have to watch the clip-I already know Ed S. is a douche.
You can tell he is every time he visits us podunks here in SW ND.
He & his son both. Regular people who made it big time coming in to the small town, buying a hunting house, and generally acting as if they are some kind of elite force.
From my personal observations, I wouldn’t trust Ed S. as far as I could pee.
Badger40 on September 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM
But-as far as I know, I was still under the impression that God AND Jesus wants us to have free will in deciding how we are charitable to those less fortunate.
If we are forced, then we are not being charitable in our hearts.
Badger40 on September 4, 2009 at 2:19 PM
He said ‘Feed my sheep’
He didn’t say make sure your government manages the commune so that not one of you goes hungry.
He didn’t say make sure your government manages the commune so that not one of you goes without health care.
He didn’t say sit down and wait for your government to bring your daily wage.
He didn’t say a lot of things.
He said ‘Feed my sheep’
Blacksmith8 on September 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM
What’s funny to me is they seem to be in such a hurry, they’re standin’ on the pedal.
Blacksmith8 on September 4, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Is there any believer that doesn’t think God could provide for us so that we’d never have to work or worry about our next meal? If he didn’t think it was good policy, why do those who want to substitute government for God?
flataffect on September 5, 2009 at 1:25 AM