Results 1 to 7 of 7
-
10-28-2013, 05:48 PM #1
Libertarian Jesus
From 2009, but still relevant.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com...s-a-socialist/
President Obama invoked Jesus and the three wise men to justify his agenda of redistribution. I’m not exactly a religious scholar, but this surely is absurd. Doesn’t Christianity (and, I assume, Judaism and other faiths) require individuals – using free will – to act charitably? Using the coercive power of government to forcibly redistribute other people’s money, by contrast, is moral preening at best and could be characterized as government thuggery.
-
-
10-29-2013, 09:32 AM #2
Yes, we are called on to help others if needed. To help others better themselves when possible.
-
10-29-2013, 11:24 AM #3
That is one if not the most moronic websites I have ever visited. It's almost as bad as stormfront.org. Clicking on that link was like taking a popper of Amyl Nitrate, I will never get those brain cells back.
Pathetic garbage.Last edited by centrehice; 10-29-2013 at 11:29 AM.
-
-
10-29-2013, 12:04 PM #4
I agree with the first post. I think it's sad that Americans have to be legislated into helping their fellow man. I'm certain, though, you'll come up with some reason to help no one but yourselves and still think you're living Jesus' teachings.
-
10-29-2013, 12:48 PM #5
I seem to remember that the US, as well as Canada, were both ranked in the Top 5 of all countries in the Charity Index, (I believe the three criteria are charitable giving, volunteering, and helping a stranger) so that's not my concern.
This thread is directed at the liberals who always hurl accusations of hating the poor whenever conservatives voice opposition to various welfare programs.
-
-
10-29-2013, 01:20 PM #6
Too much of America's charity is in millions of dollars, given for Politcal Patronage to other countries, that a poor US citizen does not see. The USA is the most charitable nation in the World when it comes to giving money abroad, but the worst in taking care of it's own disenfranchised.
Those are the facts.
-
10-29-2013, 01:24 PM #7
Yes, and legislation, in the form of tax breaks for charitable donations, is fully responsible for that. If people didn't get anything in return, they'd never donate in the first place.
Not to mention, how much of that is in the form of campaigns like Pink for Breast Cancer which sees the vast majority of profits go to private companies supplying shirts and ribbons, and very little to the actual charity they claim the money is going?
-














