Religion in politics/schools

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder in Ceecee's home school if she covers Homer, Sumeria, Hammurabi, Aristotle, Mycenae, Crete, the civilizations of the Indus and Yellow rivers, classical Greece and the Republic and Empire of Rome, and, oh, several dozen vitally important topics to understanding western civilization?

Amazingly enough, less of that is necessary to understanding Western Civ than you imagine. That would be why college classes on the subject spend so little time discussing those things.

I'm not surprised you don't realize how often the Bible is referenced in just everyday life, let alone in literature and the arts. Neither am I surprised that you labor under the delusion that ancient Sumeria regularly crops up in those areas, requiring extensive knowledge of it rather than a passing explanation of its relevance on the occasions when it shows up. You are clearly an example of why my children don't go to public school.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I remember right a Christian couple were put to death by their lies to Peter about how they spent their money. I commend Acts 4 and 5 to all here, and then might you consider CeeCee's hypocrisy.

See, ignorant remarks like this only demonstrate how much education in the Bible is required, if only to prevent dunces like you from trying to make pithy, cutting arguments and making fools of themselves instead. You're just like Howard Dean, talking about his "favorite" book of the New Testament, Job.

Ananais and Sapphira - who I can only assume you're referring to from your shoddy Biblical scholarship - were not "put to death", nor was it for "lying to Peter", and nor was it because anyone had any right to say anything about how they spent their money. GOD struck them dead for trying to lie to HIM. He didn't care that they kept some of the money from the sale of their property, only that they tried to say they didn't.

And I commend to YOU Webster's Dictionary, where you can find a definition for the word "hypocrisy", which surprisingly enough is NOT "holding an opinion that JakeStarkey doesn't like". Go figure.

 

[Gudrid]

Maybe he's having trouble with the word "endorse" because it doesn't actually appear in the written law anywhere. I don't recall the Constitution saying, "Congress and lesser governments shall make no law endorsing religion." Maybe it's in the "penumbras and emanations"?

Establish and endorse are synonyms.

Do you feel that teachers should be allowed to read "Heather has Two Mommies" to elementary school classes?

Also, the school in California that built in Muslim prayer times - how did you feel about that? Would you be ok with your child having to be in school an extra half hour per day sitting through Muslim prayer time?

RetiredSarge - The US Supreme Court has stated in no uncertain terms that children and staff are NOT barred from praying in school. That same court has also stated in no uncertain terms that staff cannot organize prayer, nor can others be forced to wait through other's prayers. You have the right to pray, and your children have the right to pray in school. They do not, however, have the right to take up my child's time doing so. If my child's time is taken by law (via school attendance laws), and then that time is forcefully donated to other's prayer time, there is no other logical way to look at that than establishment of religion.

 

[Gudrid]

Amazingly enough, less of that is necessary to understanding Western Civ than you imagine. That would be why college classes on the subject spend so little time discussing those things.

Just a note - those things are discussed in college in my experience. We even studied those in my high school, along with secular study of bible excerpts. My daughter's middle school studied Hammurabi's code, the 10 commandments, etc. I'm only mentioning it because you said you homeschooled, so I thought it might be useful information. I homeschooled for a year as well. Kudos to you; it's not an easy thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe he's having trouble with the word "endorse" because it doesn't actually appear in the written law anywhere. I don't recall the Constitution saying, "Congress and lesser governments shall make no law endorsing religion." Maybe it's in the "penumbras and emanations"?

Establish and endorse are synonyms.

No, they aren't. And that's even assuming that when the First Amendment says ". . . an establishment of religion", it was talking about "establish" the verb rather than "establishment" the noun, and I'm afraid that's not the way it reads.

Do you feel that teachers should be allowed to read "Heather has Two Mommies" to elementary school classes?

No, as a matter of fact. That is making a value judgement and passing it on, and at this point in American history, that is simply not the place of public school teachers. Besides, I don't think they're doing such a spiffy job of teaching academics that they need to spending time branching out into teaching other things.

Also, the school in California that built in Muslim prayer times - how did you feel about that? Would you be ok with your child having to be in school an extra half hour per day sitting through Muslim prayer time?

There are reasons I don't live in California.

I don't care if the school gives Muslim students time to perform necessary practices of their religion, so long as they do so evenhandedly for ALL religious students, and it doesn't interfere unduly with academic work. I have a problem with schools that insist on making other students participate in Muslim religious practices (yes, it has happened).

RetiredSarge - The US Supreme Court has stated in no uncertain terms that children and staff are NOT barred from praying in school. That same court has also stated in no uncertain terms that staff cannot organize prayer, nor can others be forced to wait through other's prayers. You have the right to pray, and your children have the right to pray in school. They do not, however, have the right to take up my child's time doing so. If my child's time is taken by law (via school attendance laws), and then that time is forcefully donated to other's prayer time, there is no other logical way to look at that than establishment of religion.

And it's amazing how schools and lower courts feel free to just ignore THAT ruling, and any other that just doesn't fit with how they want to do things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Amazingly enough, less of that is necessary to understanding Western Civ than you imagine. That would be why college classes on the subject spend so little time discussing those things.

Just a note - those things are discussed in college in my experience. We even studied those in my high school, along with secular study of bible excerpts. My daughter's middle school studied Hammurabi's code, the 10 commandments, etc. I'm only mentioning it because you said you homeschooled, so I thought it might be useful information. I homeschooled for a year as well. Kudos to you; it's not an easy thing.

My college courses in Western Civ referred very little to such things. It's a good idea to have had history classes prior to where Western Civ picks up, but it doesn't require much knowledge of their cultures at all.

 

[Gudrid]

Maybe he's having trouble with the word "endorse" because it doesn't actually appear in the written law anywhere. I don't recall the Constitution saying, "Congress and lesser governments shall make no law endorsing religion." Maybe it's in the "penumbras and emanations"?

Establish and endorse are synonyms.

No, they aren't.

Yes, they are.

And that's even assuming that when the First Amendment says ". . . an establishment of religion", it was talking about "establish" the verb rather than "establishment" the noun, and I'm afraid that's not the way it reads.

However you wish to read it, the establishment clause has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court.

No, as a matter of fact. That is making a value judgement and passing it on, and at this point in American history, that is simply not the place of public school teachers. Besides, I don't think they're doing such a spiffy job of teaching academics that they need to spending time branching out into teaching other things.

We actually agree on that subject. So why is prayer in school ok but not the book?

I don't care if the school gives Muslim students time to perform necessary practices of their religion, so long as they do so evenhandedly for ALL religious students, and it doesn't interfere unduly with academic work. I have a problem with schools that insist on making other students participate in Muslim religious practices (yes, it has happened).

I have a problem with schools that put kids in a situation to feel pressured by religion. And if you're the only Christian kid in a predominantly Muslim school, I don't feel you should have to sit around having "study hall" so other kids can practice religion. Do it on their own time, not academic time, or home school or go to private school.

And it's amazing how schools and lower courts feel free to just ignore THAT ruling, and any other that just doesn't fit with how they want to do things.

I've noticed many people on each side who ignore whichever half of that ruling they don't like. And the issue becomes more and more polarized. But I do not feel that anyone should ever be denied the ability to talk to their God, whatever their beliefs may be. At the same time, people going to an educational setting should not have to deal with other's religions during school time. I think anyone who truly wants to uphold the Constitution will be protective of both of those principals.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well Dis thats my point.......Why would a TRUE CHRISTIAN spend money to fight a legal battel while there are HOMELESS and STARVING people in society. So yes I consider them "Christians"

Because there are some things more important thatn giving money to the poor. You'd understand this if you read the Gospels.

Still can't get over this one.......So Jesus said that something is MORE important than caring for the weak and needy? How about you show me where Jesus said some things are MORE important than giving money/help to the poor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Establish and endorse are synonyms.

No, they aren't.

Yes, they are.

No, they're still not. That's why my thesaurus doesn't list either of them under the other. You can think they're similar and related if you wish, but they aren't synonyms.

However you wish to read it, the establishment clause has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court.

Ah, the ever-popular leftist argument of "The law isn't what the words on the paper say. The law is whatever the Supreme Court tells me it is. How dare you expect me to read for comprehension and think for myself?!" Nuff said, I guess.

We actually agree on that subject. So why is prayer in school ok but not the book?

I'm afraid you lost me there. I don't have an eidetic memory for these conversations, and so your reference is a bit obscure to me at this point. Could you elaborate just a bit?

I don't care if the school gives Muslim students time to perform necessary practices of their religion, so long as they do so evenhandedly for ALL religious students, and it doesn't interfere unduly with academic work. I have a problem with schools that insist on making other students participate in Muslim religious practices (yes, it has happened).

I have a problem with schools that put kids in a situation to feel pressured by religion. And if you're the only Christian kid in a predominantly Muslim school, I don't feel you should have to sit around having "study hall" so other kids can practice religion. Do it on their own time, not academic time, or home school or go to private school.

I think if you're the only Christian kid in a predominantly Muslim school, you're already going to feel pressured and out-of-place no matter what you do. And I don't think you should have the right to change the way the entire rest of the school population behaves and lives its life just to accommodate you and make you feel comfy. YOU should be the one going to a private school, if that's the case.

It's a strange world we live in when we think that teaching our children to be tolerant and non-prejudicial doesn't mean compromise and living side-by-side peacefully with other cultures, but building an entirely new, generic, secular culture that we force everyone to pretend to while hiding what they really are from public view.

And it's amazing how schools and lower courts feel free to just ignore THAT ruling, and any other that just doesn't fit with how they want to do things.

I've noticed many people on each side who ignore whichever half of that ruling they don't like. And the issue becomes more and more polarized. But I do not feel that anyone should ever be denied the ability to talk to their God, whatever their beliefs may be. At the same time, people going to an educational setting should not have to deal with other's religions during school time. I think anyone who truly wants to uphold the Constitution will be protective of both of those principals.

No, Christians don't ignore legal rulings and precedent that goes against them. They fight it and try to change it, but they don't just simply do as they please as though it never happened. Schools DO, however, continue to behave as though they're required to stamp out any and all personal religious expression.

Yes, actually, any time you deal with other human beings, you ARE forced to deal with their religions, their cultures, the baggage that makes them who they are. You are not guaranteed the right to never be confronted with anything different from yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well Dis thats my point.......Why would a TRUE CHRISTIAN spend money to fight a legal battel while there are HOMELESS and STARVING people in society. So yes I consider them "Christians"

Because there are some things more important thatn giving money to the poor. You'd understand this if you read the Gospels.

Still can't get over this one.......So Jesus said that something is MORE important than caring for the weak and needy? How about you show me where Jesus said some things are MORE important than giving money/help to the poor.

Glad to. Matthew 26:6-13

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Here, Jesus clearly tells us that worshipping and honoring Him takes precedence over charitable giveaways.

 

[Gudrid]

No, they're still not. That's why my thesaurus doesn't list either of them under the other. You can think they're similar and related if you wish, but they aren't synonyms.

Go to websters online and use their thesaurus. Depending on which meaning you're using, endorse and establish are synonyms. But if you'd rather go for "similar and related" I'll go for that one.

Ah, the ever-popular leftist argument of "The law isn't what the words on the paper say. The law is whatever the Supreme Court tells me it is. How dare you expect me to read for comprehension and think for myself?!" Nuff said, I guess.

Your comprehension is off if you think that legally requiring kids to attend school and then taking up their time while others pray is anything other than establishment of religion in schools.

I'm afraid you lost me there. I don't have an eidetic memory for these conversations, and so your reference is a bit obscure to me at this point. Could you elaborate just a bit?

That part of the conversation was "Heather Has Two Mommies" type books versus staff-led prayer in school. Why is one acceptable and one not?

And I don't think you should have the right to change the way the entire rest of the school population behaves and lives its life just to accommodate you and make you feel comfy. YOU should be the one going to a private school, if that's the case.

I completely disagree.

It's a strange world we live in when we think that teaching our children to be tolerant and non-prejudicial doesn't mean compromise and living side-by-side peacefully with other cultures, but building an entirely new, generic, secular culture that we force everyone to pretend to while hiding what they really are from public view.

When I go to work, I'm there to work. That's my job there. Public schools are for academics.

No, Christians don't ignore legal rulings and precedent that goes against them.

Christians do all sorts of things differently from one another. And plenty ignore legal rulings and precedent that goes against them.

Schools DO, however, continue to behave as though they're required to stamp out any and all personal religious expression.

No school I've ever been in does so, but I'm sure there's some that do that. And that's completely wrong.

Yes, actually, any time you deal with other human beings, you ARE forced to deal with their religions, their cultures, the baggage that makes them who they are. You are not guaranteed the right to never be confronted with anything different from yourself.

I am never forced to waste my time waiting while someone else prays. That is my personal choice. If you advocate organized prayer in school, then you advocate taking away that right. My child simply has no obligation to wait while your child prays, and you don't have the right to steal my child's time so that your child can pray. (That's generalized you and my, not You personally).

I think you have a glaring double standard. You complain about "Heather has two mommies" being read in an area where that's the majority ethical system, but then try to claim that the majority should be in charge when it comes to organized prayer in school.

 

[Care4all]

Ring sure you can if you've got an opinion.

Dis, I guess I am just interested in the extremists because they are the ones who don't seem to understand the seperation of Church and State.

FIRST of all, the constitution is what gives them the RIGHT to speak out, and worship if they want, IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE....their homes and private churches were already fine, but the first amendment gave us the right to worship or speak about or ignore religion IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, ON PUBLIC GROUNDS.....freely, with no interference from any laws or our gvt....

and i am not a religious fanatic, but i do understand our bill of rights.

care

 

[goldcatt]

Ring sure you can if you've got an opinion.

Dis, I guess I am just interested in the extremists because they are the ones who don't seem to understand the seperation of Church and State.

FIRST of all, the constitution is what gives them the RIGHT to speak out, and worship if they want, IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE....their homes and private churches were already fine, but the first amendment gave us the right to worship or speak about or ignore religion IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, ON PUBLIC GROUNDS.....freely, with no interference from any laws or our gvt....

and i am not a religious fanatic, but i do understand our bill of rights.

care

And this is where the religion clauses of the First Amendment are in constant, probably unresolvable conflict.
Because you're right, Care - you and everyone else, individually, have the right to speak out and to worship even in the public square without government interference.
Unfortunately, the same government that has to allow individuals to worship cannot itself push or be perceived to be pushing any one religion. When government employees or actors decide to exercize their individual right to worship openly as part of their official postitions as representatives of the government, there is conflict. The two have to be kept separate.
Which is why when a government representative such as a school board member tries to inject their religion into the government-owned, public school with something like teacher-led prayer it goes too far. The problem isn't "the government" or "the crazies", it's the public officials who forget when they are acting as part of the government and under the authority of government they must act in accordance with the restrictions on government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, they're still not. That's why my thesaurus doesn't list either of them under the other. You can think they're similar and related if you wish, but they aren't synonyms.

Go to websters online and use their thesaurus. Depending on which meaning you're using, endorse and establish are synonyms. But if you'd rather go for "similar and related" I'll go for that one.

Did already. Wasn't there. Also looked in the actual book. Not there either.

Doesn't matter anyway, since the First Amendment doesn't say "establish" or "endorse" either one. It says ". . . respecting an establishment of religion", and you have to really torture the English language to make "establishment" not a noun, in my never-humble opinion.

Ah, the ever-popular leftist argument of "The law isn't what the words on the paper say. The law is whatever the Supreme Court tells me it is. How dare you expect me to read for comprehension and think for myself?!" Nuff said, I guess.

Your comprehension is off if you think that legally requiring kids to attend school and then taking up their time while others pray is anything other than establishment of religion in schools.

Really? What religion are they establishing by allowing kids to pray if they choose to? The religion of tolerating other people's beliefs and practices? God forbid!

That part of the conversation was "Heather Has Two Mommies" type books versus staff-led prayer in school. Why is one acceptable and one not?

I don't believe I ever suggested that staff-led prayer was a good idea. In fact, I think I said that, given the crappy way the public schools teach pretty much everything, it's better if they DON'T take on trying to teach beliefs and values at all.

I completely disagree.

I'm sure you do. Leftists are always big fans of the tyranny of the minority.

When I go to work, I'm there to work. That's my job there. Public schools are for academics.

Yes, and I'm sure that you go to work like a perfect little automaton, sitting in your cubicle or whatever like a piece of machinery and never having any personal interaction with your co-workers. And I'm equally sure it's possible to expect children to go to school like a bunch of Stepford Wives, never interacting with each other at all except to have rousing debates about the answer to question 11 in the algebra homework.

Now, if we could possibly come back to the real world . . .

Christians do all sorts of things differently from one another. And plenty ignore legal rulings and precedent that goes against them.

Really? Please name a time that Christians behaved as though a legal ruling against them never happened.

Schools DO, however, continue to behave as though they're required to stamp out any and all personal religious expression.

No school I've ever been in does so, but I'm sure there's some that do that. And that's completely wrong.

Straw man. The topic is not, and never has been, "schools you personally have been in". The schools you have personally been in do not comprise the totality of all schools in the United States, nor even a fair representation thereof.

I do appreciate you admitting that they exist, and that it's wrong for them to do so, though.

Yes, actually, any time you deal with other human beings, you ARE forced to deal with their religions, their cultures, the baggage that makes them who they are. You are not guaranteed the right to never be confronted with anything different from yourself.

I am never forced to waste my time waiting while someone else prays. That is my personal choice. If you advocate organized prayer in school, then you advocate taking away that right. My child simply has no obligation to wait while your child prays, and you don't have the right to steal my child's time so that your child can pray. (That's generalized you and my, not You personally).

Actually, it's NOT your personal choice. It's your coincidental circumstance, at least as far as you know. Truth is, you have no idea if the civil servant you're waiting on to come back to his desk so you can take care of your business is on coffee break, in the john, or a Muslim performing one of his daily prayers in a back room. You could very well BE "wasting your time waiting while someone else prays". And it's certainly not your place to tell him he has to forego the necessary practices of his religion because you personally don't think they're important.

I have not advocated any organized prayers, and you're setting up a straw man if you're trying to pretend that's the argument.

I think you have a glaring double standard. You complain about "Heather has two mommies" being read in an area where that's the majority ethical system, but then try to claim that the majority should be in charge when it comes to organized prayer in school.

Sorry, but the problem here is that you're not listening to MY arguments. You're listening to the arguments you want me to be making because you want to argue against them.

Call me when you're done having this apocryphal debate with your imaginary-Cecilie about organized school prayer, and maybe you can find the time to talk about something I actually said.

 

[Avatar4321]

Still can't get over this one.......So Jesus said that something is MORE important than caring for the weak and needy? How about you show me where Jesus said some things are MORE important than giving money/help to the poor.

How about you actually read the scriptures instead of being shocked and surprised about what's in them. The story is in each of the Gospels:

6 ¶ Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

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. (Matthew 26:6-13)

Or how about John's account:

2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. (John 12:2-8)

I do find it ironic that you follow the path of the traitor. You complain about Christians not helping the poor, not because you care for the poor, but because you wish to speak evil of true Christians. And True Christians realize there are times when there are things more important than giving to the poor. Because they have studied the scriptures and understand Christ's words.

 

[DiveCon]

Well Dis thats my point.......Why would a TRUE CHRISTIAN spend money to fight a legal battel while there are HOMELESS and STARVING people in society. So yes I consider them "Christians"

Because there are some things more important thatn giving money to the poor. You'd understand this if you read the Gospels.

Still can't get over this one.......So Jesus said that something is MORE important than caring for the weak and needy? How about you show me where Jesus said some things are MORE important than giving money/help to the poor.

well, first maybe you can show me where he said for Ceasar to take money from you and others to help the poor

 

[Smartt33]

Because there are some things more important thatn giving money to the poor. You'd understand this if you read the Gospels.

Still can't get over this one.......So Jesus said that something is MORE important than caring for the weak and needy? How about you show me where Jesus said some things are MORE important than giving money/help to the poor.

well, first maybe you can show me where he said for Ceasar to take money from you and others to help the poor

First, Jesus made it clear that money was never a priority, even when giving to the poor. Helps of many kinds can be given, even personal help from oneself rather than money. Then Jesus considered following Him, and abiding by God's commandments to be more significant than the help for the needy. Jesus told at least one person, "Let the dead burry the dead, come follow me now." This was when he had asked a person to become one of His kingdom kids. We can still give foor and blankets, even while taking care of issues of our own. There is no sin in that, unless it is about "love of money" on our part.

Jesus did not heal everyone he passed. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. We will not ever win the poverty war. Jesus would rather they learn how to fish rather than to give them food. Then they can do it for themselves.

Where it is possible, we certainly need to be about doing the community well. However, not all of the problems are our tasks.

 

[DiveCon]

Still can't get over this one.......So Jesus said that something is MORE important than caring for the weak and needy? How about you show me where Jesus said some things are MORE important than giving money/help to the poor.

well, first maybe you can show me where he said for Ceasar to take money from you and others to help the poor

First, Jesus made it clear that money was never a priority, even when giving to the poor. Helps of many kinds can be given, even personal help from oneself rather than money. Then Jesus considered following Him, and abiding by God's commandments to be more significant than the help for the needy. Jesus told at least one person, "Let the dead burry the dead, come follow me now." This was when he had asked a person to become one of His kingdom kids. We can still give foor and blankets, even while taking care of issues of our own. There is no sin in that, unless it is about "love of money" on our part.

Jesus did not heal everyone he passed. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. We will not ever win the poverty war. Jesus would rather they learn how to fish rather than to give them food. Then they can do it for themselves.

Where it is possible, we certainly need to be about doing the community well. However, not all of the problems are our tasks.

but the point i was making is these libs making the claim Jesus said to take care of the poor and them supporting the government FORCING the unwilling to do so
Jesus said to do it YOURSELF
not force others to do it

 

[Cecilie1200]

Still can't get over this one.......So Jesus said that something is MORE important than caring for the weak and needy? How about you show me where Jesus said some things are MORE important than giving money/help to the poor.

well, first maybe you can show me where he said for Ceasar to take money from you and others to help the poor

First, Jesus made it clear that money was never a priority, even when giving to the poor. Helps of many kinds can be given, even personal help from oneself rather than money. Then Jesus considered following Him, and abiding by God's commandments to be more significant than the help for the needy. Jesus told at least one person, "Let the dead burry the dead, come follow me now." This was when he had asked a person to become one of His kingdom kids. We can still give foor and blankets, even while taking care of issues of our own. There is no sin in that, unless it is about "love of money" on our part.

Jesus did not heal everyone he passed. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. We will not ever win the poverty war. Jesus would rather they learn how to fish rather than to give them food. Then they can do it for themselves.

Where it is possible, we certainly need to be about doing the community well. However, not all of the problems are our tasks.

It isn't like Christians are the only ones to have noticed that you often do people more good by giving them something other than money, such as the time and encouragement to learn to take care of themselves. I can never decide if the disconnect is that LEFTISTS haven't noticed this fact, or that they somehow think WE aren't aware of it.

Whatever the problem there, there's another huge disconnect in that they seem to think Christianity is primarily a charitable organization like the Red Cross or the local Food Bank, full of community organizers and existing mainly for the purpose of doing nice things for people. In fact, being nice to people is an ancillary offshoot of the real focus of the whole thing, which is worshipping God.

 

[Cecilie1200]

well, first maybe you can show me where he said for Ceasar to take money from you and others to help the poor

First, Jesus made it clear that money was never a priority, even when giving to the poor. Helps of many kinds can be given, even personal help from oneself rather than money. Then Jesus considered following Him, and abiding by God's commandments to be more significant than the help for the needy. Jesus told at least one person, "Let the dead burry the dead, come follow me now." This was when he had asked a person to become one of His kingdom kids. We can still give foor and blankets, even while taking care of issues of our own. There is no sin in that, unless it is about "love of money" on our part.

Jesus did not heal everyone he passed. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. We will not ever win the poverty war. Jesus would rather they learn how to fish rather than to give them food. Then they can do it for themselves.

Where it is possible, we certainly need to be about doing the community well. However, not all of the problems are our tasks.

but the point i was making is these libs making the claim Jesus said to take care of the poor and them supporting the government FORCING the unwilling to do so
Jesus said to do it YOURSELF
not force others to do it

Also true. When the Bible DOES instruct us to extend charity to our fellow man, it is talking about a very personal, hands-on sort of activity, designed to bring about the real spiritual advancement and development of the souls of both the giver and receiver, not the putrid, self-serving foisting-off of personal responsibility onto a faceless bureaucracy aimed primarily at letting people feel good and compassionate without actually inconveniencing themselves and getting their hands dirty.