Are Republicans Christians?

[Foxfyre]

Did you know that Head Start's highly touted success rate is only temporary?

Obama Administration Report Shows Head Start Ineffective | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

This is what some of my educator friends have been telling me too. They say that kids from two parent families and who don't have Head Start are eons ahead of the Head Start kids when they start First Grade. It seems that having a mom and dad are far more important to getting a good start than an artificial government program.

That also statistically is true of straight and gay kids alike. Those from two parent families are more likely to stay in school and graduate, more likely to get higher education, are less likely to do much alcohol and other drugs, are less likely to get involved with gangs or get in trouble in the law, are much less likely to live in poverty.

Looks to me like in order to promote the general welfare, the Federal government should be looking for more ways to encourage marriage and people staying together for the kids instead of one-size-fits-all government programs, many if not most that are producing dubious results.

DISCLAIMER FOR THE NUMBNUTS: I am not saying that single parents don't ever do a good job or that there are no exceptions to the above.

Looks like a strong argument for allowing gay marriage does it not?
note: not trying to steal the thread

LOL. I don't have all that much problem with gay marriage if we can manage it in a way that won't weaken traditional marriage and relegate even more kids to single parent or unisex households. I think all kids, straight and gay, benefit hugely from having loving male and female role models in the home.

And for me, whatever policy is decided, should have the welfare of those kids in mind. Everything else anybody wants is purely secondary. That goes for ALL policy. However good it sounds or whatever rationale is given for fairness, if it isn't working for the kids, we shouldn't be doing it.

And Jesus, in my opinion, preached that perhaps more emphatically than anything else he said.

 

[FA_Q2]

Statistics on food stamps and other programs are not getting at the heart of the matter. I do not think that anyone here is saying that zero government involvement is the answer. There are valuable programs out there and food stamps is actually a program that I can support. The problem is that it has gone overboard and the government is terribly inefficient at helping people. More often than not, those programs actually help KEEP people poor instead of giving them a second chance. There is a place for the government when it comes to safety nets but that place was exceeded years ago. Welfare, tax credits and handouts are not going to allow people to excel. The only things that the government should be helping with are basic needs that must be met (food being a good example) but those same programs should come with simple requirements. Food stamps should only be allowed for specific foods that are nutrient dense and you should never receive change for food stamps. I like the new program credit cards because there is greater control over how that money is handed out. When it comes to charity, the government is the LAST resort and the community should be the first choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

Statistics on food stamps and other programs are not getting at the heart of the matter. I do not think that anyone here is saying that zero government involvement is the answer. There are valuable programs out there and food stamps is actually a program that I can support. The problem is that it has gone overboard and the government is terribly inefficient at helping people. More often than not, those programs actually help KEEP people poor instead of giving them a second chance. There is a place for the government when it comes to safety nets but that place was exceeded years ago. Welfare, tax credits and handouts are not going to allow people to excel. The only things that the government should be helping with are basic needs that must be met (food being a good example) but those same programs should come with simple requirements. Food stamps should only be allowed for specific foods that are nutrient dense and you should never receive change for food stamps. I like the new program credit cards because there is greater control over how that money is handed out. When it comes to charity, the government is the LAST resort and the community should be the first choice.

I have long been one who is beating the drum for zero FEDERAL involvement. The country is too big and too diverse with too many different factors to consider in order for any one size fits all Federal program to be effective or efficient or fair or smart.

I want to get the Federal government out of all of it--phasing out slowly and carefully in those areas that we have made people slaves to/dependent on the system--and let the states and local communities put together social contracts to help those who need help.

It does not have to be done at a central government level in order to get done.

 

[Cal]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

 

[Foxfyre]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

That's nonsense. Jesus chose a wealthy (and despised) tax collector to be his disciple. He went to the wealthy Zaccheus's house for lunch. He praised the obviously well-to-do Samaritan for selflessly helping an injured victim on the road. He condemned the actions of the rich and poor alike who preyed upon others.

Jesus was no respecter of race, religion, or socioeconomic standing. He gave nothing to the poor actually, but made it possible for the poor to be helped. He healed the sick yes, but as an illustration of what it was possible for others to do. He had no comfort for those who complained that they received less than others received. And His harshest words were for hypocrites who judged others by some standard that they failed to live up to themselves.

The Jesus that Christian conservatives serve was a man who gave selflessly of himself, but required that of no other. He was a man who led by example, not by law. He was a man who expected those helped to then help themselves and others.

Jesus judged people by their potential, not their politics.

 

[FA_Q2]

Statistics on food stamps and other programs are not getting at the heart of the matter. I do not think that anyone here is saying that zero government involvement is the answer. There are valuable programs out there and food stamps is actually a program that I can support. The problem is that it has gone overboard and the government is terribly inefficient at helping people. More often than not, those programs actually help KEEP people poor instead of giving them a second chance. There is a place for the government when it comes to safety nets but that place was exceeded years ago. Welfare, tax credits and handouts are not going to allow people to excel. The only things that the government should be helping with are basic needs that must be met (food being a good example) but those same programs should come with simple requirements. Food stamps should only be allowed for specific foods that are nutrient dense and you should never receive change for food stamps. I like the new program credit cards because there is greater control over how that money is handed out. When it comes to charity, the government is the LAST resort and the community should be the first choice.

I have long been one who is beating the drum for zero FEDERAL involvement. The country is too big and too diverse with too many different factors to consider in order for any one size fits all Federal program to be effective or efficient or fair or smart.

I want to get the Federal government out of all of it--phasing out slowly and carefully in those areas that we have made people slaves to/dependent on the system--and let the states and local communities put together social contracts to help those who need help.

It does not have to be done at a central government level in order to get done.

I will stand corrected then. I cannot agree with zero involvement. There does need to be a base safety net in place for those that truly need a hand up. The state can do the brunt of the work but there should be a baseline from which those states operate from, a base set of needs that are met and that is the federal government. Food is a base need and I have no problem with food stamps doled out by the federal government to cover that basic need for families. Why would that program be better held by the state? There is not a great enough disparity in food to need a local element. Shelters on the other hand should be a state filled roll as there are major differences in that category between arias and donations are how much of that need is and should be filled. There are programs that are better suited for the federal government than the local ones and other programs that are better suited for local states and still others that are better suited to charities. Why not play to the strengths of each of these institutions and use what they have instead of cutting some out entirely?

 

[FA_Q2]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

That's nonsense. Jesus chose a wealthy (and despised) tax collector to be his disciple. He went to the wealthy Zaccheus's house for lunch. He praised the obviously well-to-do Samaritan for selflessly helping an injured victim on the road. He condemned the actions of the rich and poor alike who preyed upon others.

Jesus was no respecter of race, religion, or socioeconomic standing. He gave nothing to the poor actually, but made it possible for the poor to be helped. He healed the sick yes, but as an illustration of what it was possible for others to do. He had no comfort for those who complained that they received less than others received. And His harshest words were for hypocrites who judged others by some standard that they failed to live up to themselves.

The Jesus that Christian conservatives serve was a man who gave selflessly of himself, but required that of no other. He was a man who led by example, not by law. He was a man who expected those helped to then help themselves and others.

Jesus judged people by their potential, not their politics.

And as such was NOT a community organizer. He did not organize anything. He gave of himself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Statistics on food stamps and other programs are not getting at the heart of the matter. I do not think that anyone here is saying that zero government involvement is the answer. There are valuable programs out there and food stamps is actually a program that I can support. The problem is that it has gone overboard and the government is terribly inefficient at helping people. More often than not, those programs actually help KEEP people poor instead of giving them a second chance. There is a place for the government when it comes to safety nets but that place was exceeded years ago. Welfare, tax credits and handouts are not going to allow people to excel. The only things that the government should be helping with are basic needs that must be met (food being a good example) but those same programs should come with simple requirements. Food stamps should only be allowed for specific foods that are nutrient dense and you should never receive change for food stamps. I like the new program credit cards because there is greater control over how that money is handed out. When it comes to charity, the government is the LAST resort and the community should be the first choice.

I have long been one who is beating the drum for zero FEDERAL involvement. The country is too big and too diverse with too many different factors to consider in order for any one size fits all Federal program to be effective or efficient or fair or smart.

I want to get the Federal government out of all of it--phasing out slowly and carefully in those areas that we have made people slaves to/dependent on the system--and let the states and local communities put together social contracts to help those who need help.

It does not have to be done at a central government level in order to get done.

I will stand corrected then. I cannot agree with zero involvement. There does need to be a base safety net in place for those that truly need a hand up. The state can do the brunt of the work but there should be a baseline from which those states operate from, a base set of needs that are met and that is the federal government. Food is a base need and I have no problem with food stamps doled out by the federal government to cover that basic need for families. Why would that program be better held by the state? There is not a great enough disparity in food to need a local element. Shelters on the other hand should be a state filled roll as there are major differences in that category between arias and donations are how much of that need is and should be filled. There are programs that are better suited for the federal government than the local ones and other programs that are better suited for local states and still others that are better suited to charities. Why not play to the strengths of each of these institutions and use what they have instead of cutting some out entirely?

In my opinion, and in the vision put forth by our Founders, the Federal government has specific constitutional responsibilities to fill. Providing food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. is not a constitutional responsibility of the Federal government. Why isn't it? Because they were all still very close to government that did get involved in those basic necessities and it generally turned out badly.

Providing the general welfare rather than promoting has always been too corrupting for both those in government and those receiving it. The temptations to abuse it are too strong.

And why continue to promote programs in which most of the funding is swallowed up by the bureaucracy at various levels rather than keeping services at the most local level where most of the funds actually helps those who need the funds? That is simply poor stewardship of available resources.

 

[asterism]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

Jesus also spoke out against the government and the ruling class of the day. They killed him for it.

When did he ever suggest that Caesar or the Temple Elders be in charge of helping the poor?

 

[asterism]

And why continue to promote programs in which most of the funding is swallowed up by the bureaucracy at various levels rather than keeping services at the most local level where most of the funds actually helps those who need the funds? That is simply poor stewardship of available resources.

I always thought that was a bit strange, send the money to Washington to then have a Representative fight to get federal funds back here to help. Why the inefficiency?

(I know why, but that in itself defeats the "moral argument.")

 

[Foxfyre]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

Jesus also spoke out against the government and the ruling class of the day. They killed him for it.

When did he ever suggest that Caesar or the Temple Elders be in charge of helping the poor?

I'll think about that but I can't remember anyplace that Jesus was anti government or even critical of government. He used good and evil rulers in his parables and he distinguished between that which belonged to Caesar and that which belonged to God. Otherwsie, he was pretty silent on the subject of government in general.

Again, much of his criticism was directed at those who were self serving at the unwilling expense of others in any category, especially if they did so dishonestly. And again his harshest criticism was reserved for those who harmed children and those who presumed to judge others for that which they themselves were guilty.

 

[asterism]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

Jesus also spoke out against the government and the ruling class of the day. They killed him for it.

When did he ever suggest that Caesar or the Temple Elders be in charge of helping the poor?

I'll think about that but I can't remember anyplace that Jesus was anti government or even critical of government. He used good and evil rulers in his parables and he distinguished between that which belonged to Caesar and that which belonged to God. Otherwsie, he was pretty silent on the subject of government in general.

Again, much of his criticism was directed at those who were self serving at the unwilling expense of others in any category, especially if they did so dishonestly. And again his harshest criticism was reserved for those who harmed children and those who presumed to judge others for that which they themselves were guilty.

Interpretations differ, but I agree with your general sentiment.

 

[CMike]

I am republican and not christian.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am republican and not christian.

And you have a lot of company out there too. I have Republican friends who are Buddhist, Unitarian, Hindu, Atheist, and agnostic just to mention a few.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some federal programs have been successful. Food stamps, for instance, Headstart and WIC.

"In the late 1960s, medical studies revealed that American children were dying from diseases related to severe malnutrition. Food Stamps were made available nationwide, and in 1979, doctors found that severe malnutrition had become rare, a result they attributed to Food Stamps."
http://www.mncn.org/bp/foodstamps.pdf

Federal social programs are not the enemy.

Did you know that Head Start's highly touted success rate is only temporary?

Obama Administration Report Shows Head Start Ineffective | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

This is what some of my educator friends have been telling me too. They say that kids from two parent families and who don't have Head Start are eons ahead of the Head Start kids when they start First Grade. It seems that having a mom and dad are far more important to getting a good start than an artificial government program.

That also statistically is true of straight and gay kids alike. Those from two parent families are more likely to stay in school and graduate, more likely to get higher education, are less likely to do much alcohol and other drugs, are less likely to get involved with gangs or get in trouble in the law, are much less likely to live in poverty.

Looks to me like in order to promote the general welfare, the Federal government should be looking for more ways to encourage marriage and people staying together for the kids instead of one-size-fits-all government programs, many if not most that are producing dubious results.

DISCLAIMER FOR THE NUMBNUTS: I am not saying that single parents don't ever do a good job or that there are no exceptions to the above.

My bet is the numbnuts will ignore the disclaimer.

It always amazes me that kids from stable families tend to do better than kids from "dysfunctional" ones, and that some people can ignore that so easily because of the exceptions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure Jesus taught us to help people by giving more control to the government.

Nope. In fact Jesus was pretty consistent in praising people who practiced benevolence personally. I can't find any instances in which he suggested that it be funneled through the government.

One of our more thoughtful members notes that there is nothing in the Bible that prevents tax dollars from being used for benevolence. And that is true.

But there is plenty in the Bible suggesting that benevolence is a personal responsibility whether done one on one as in the case of the Good Samaritan or through the Church as we find in Acts, the Epistles, and elsewhere in the New Testament.

My argument for the Federal government to not be in the business of dispensing charity is because it is a kind of theft, it is poor stewardship, in many if not most case it produces dubious results, and it is corrupting to both those dispensing the charity and those receiving it.

And the Bible has much to say about the evils of corrupt government.

I could argue that the Bible is not silent on the subject of using government, or any, funds to support those who will not work, but that would be petty of me. I will simply point out that tithing is something that would come out of a persons own money, and not tax dollars.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

Which Bible do you read? Jesus was many things, but he never organized a community. Community organization is a political action, and Jesus made very clear that his kingdom was no a political one. I will also point out that Jesus had no problem with rich people, and that more than one of his followers were rich. Your misrepresentation is typical of those who want to turn Christianity from a religion to a state mandated religion.

Both the left and the right try to use Jesus' teachings to justify their positions, and you all are totalitarian. You all make me sick to my stomach.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

According to the bible, Jesus was a community organizer, helped the poor, healed the sick..and for sure was no fan of the rich. The "Jesus" that conservatives serve, is not the kind, caring, and compassionate man we read about in the bible..

Jesus also spoke out against the government and the ruling class of the day. They killed him for it.

When did he ever suggest that Caesar or the Temple Elders be in charge of helping the poor?

Another totalitarian liar, he did no such thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure Jesus taught us to help people by giving more control to the government.

Nope. In fact Jesus was pretty consistent in praising people who practiced benevolence personally. I can't find any instances in which he suggested that it be funneled through the government.

One of our more thoughtful members notes that there is nothing in the Bible that prevents tax dollars from being used for benevolence. And that is true.

But there is plenty in the Bible suggesting that benevolence is a personal responsibility whether done one on one as in the case of the Good Samaritan or through the Church as we find in Acts, the Epistles, and elsewhere in the New Testament.

My argument for the Federal government to not be in the business of dispensing charity is because it is a kind of theft, it is poor stewardship, in many if not most case it produces dubious results, and it is corrupting to both those dispensing the charity and those receiving it.

And the Bible has much to say about the evils of corrupt government.

I could argue that the Bible is not silent on the subject of using government, or any, funds to support those who will not work, but that would be petty of me. I will simply point out that tithing is something that would come out of a persons own money, and not tax dollars.

The tithe was also voluntary. It was expected of those who were obedient to God's law, but there was no penalty imposed for not paying it. And it was not paid to the government but to the priesthood who did not own property of their own. The tithe was to support the priesthood who in turn distributed to the widows, orphans, and hungry strangers,etc.

By the time King David was on the throne, the government had three primary functions: The king was charged to protect the national territory. He was to preserve the peace within the boundaries of the national territory. And, except for the priesthood, he was to be sure that each family in the nation had property to buy for a home and means of livelihood.

 

[Avatar4321]

Tithing is still voluntary.

Choose you this day, whom you will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.