You see there you go again dodging Jesus stuff just because it's leftist, "taking out of context snippets of the Bible..." Your Jesus character says give to the poor period. He doesn't say, don't give to government even when they are doing what I said with the poor just because the government is not in the form you would like it to be. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." should be quite clear enough to you, if you were following your imaginary friend Jesus like the religious always claim should be the case. You really should have no problem with that were you not being hypocritical. Just give to the poor. How doesn't matter according to the bible Jesus model as it is declared.
"OCD troll"? I bet that one hurt when you pulled it out of your ass. Not surprisingly, in typical libtard fashion. Your "defense" of your embarrassing hypocrisy is deflection. Maybe you should get your own show on MSNBC, you'd be a natural.
I didn't dodge anything, Stu. I agree wholeheartedly we should take care of those who can't take care of themselves and or need help... example, Jesus condemned the Jewish elite for taking advantage of widows (those having no means of income) , the Apostle Paul writes about the responsibility of the Church to take care it's needy and each other. What you fail to grasp is the reason why Christ commanded us to do so..... which is to point people to Him. Again his unilateral answer to which is the greatest commandment, 1. Love the Lord your God with everything. 2. and then, love your neighbor as yourself. All commandments were based on these two principles, but you can't just pick number #2 ( which encompasses all your "giving to the needy") bypassing #1. Render unto Caesar? Really? You want to stick to that path? If I just ate a spicy habanero and uttered, "Man, am I on fire!" To you'd I'd be lying because I literally wasn't bursting into flames..... when reading, the context of the Author, has to be taken into account..... try understanding who Jesus was speaking too at that moment and their motives... they were trying to trap him in his words. Matthew 22:15-22 ESV Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. They tried to trap Jesus, If He denied the tax the Pharisees would have had cause to charge him with sedition against the Romans, they thought if Jesus opted for the tax, in an attempt to avoid prosecution he would loose favor with some of his following which were adamantly anti-Rome. You want to give to the needy? Trying having the left give compassion and life to babies.
http://www.yale.edu/yfp/archives/00_4_julian.html Julian hated Christianity, but he understood that it flourished under martyrdom, so he took non-violent measures to stamp it out. The emperor barred Christians from all imperial offices and positions of prestige. He closed several major cathedrals. He also forbade Christians to teach grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy, since the classic works in these subjects were produced by a pagan culture. Yet even these measures proved insufficient to revive paganism. Julian blamed the failure of his project on the Christians and their charity. They were making the pagans look bad: �The impious Galileans support not only their own poor, but ours as well,� Julian observed in a letter to his high priests. He believed that much of Christianity�s appeal grew out of its humanitarianism. Julian had nothing but contempt for the Christians; he insisted on referring to them as �Galileans� to emphasize their provincial roots. But paganism was just not competitive without charity. The essential problem for Julian was that pagan hospitality extended only to one�s own kind. The Roman Empire was a multicultural society whose provinces shared little in the way of culture. The constituent groups of the swiftly united Empire were of different races, spoke different languages, and practiced different religions. Their imperial government exacted nothing other than taxes and obedience. It was, in many ways, an example of the multicultural vision of America. Unlike Americans, however, the people of the Roman Empire only took care of their own. Charity began and ended with one�s own group in society, whether it was national or religious. A citizen of Sicily considered other Sicilians to be his neighbors; the problems of Gaul were of no concern to him. Pagans would never have fed the Christian poor either. Against this backdrop, the Christian practice of universal charity was surprising and attractive. So Julian wanted it demolished. Instead of resorting to the harsh methods of his persecuting predecessors, Julian channeled imperial resources into an emulation of Christian charity. He ordered his pagan hierarchy to establish hospices for anyone in need, �not only those of our own number,� and to provide wine and wheat to the poor for free, He further instructed his priests to �accustom Hellenes to acts of good will of this kind.� The fractured multicultural world of the Roman Empire, in which everyone cared only for his own, was to be reconfigured into an imperial welfare system for the purpose of imitating the hated enemy. It was an act contrary to pagan tradition and to the diverse Empire Julian governed. Julian did not claim it was an inherently good idea: He reassured his priests in the text of his letters that his purpose was only to take from the Christians the credit they had earned from their good works. He wanted to wipe them out, and he assumed that once an imperial system for feeding and housing the poor had been established, the Christian charitable societies would die out. It was a very clever idea: to beat the Christians by appropriating one of their most appealing practices. That this idea was ever Christian has been lost on our society. We are daily casting off the restraints of Christian morality, and regular church attendance is limited to a small fraction of our population. Yet we hold on to the idea that the poor should be clothed and fed, having largely rejected the religion that produced it.
I, for one, want my government to be ethical. I want my nation to be guided by the words of Jesus and the other wise men who wrote the Bible and created the wisdom of the other world's religions. A huge part of that is to take care of those in need. The best way to do that is through a centralized system run by the UNITED states government. I do not want or expect the Churches to take over this. It is simply not practical and we are not a nation of religions but of people. There is no reason that as a nation we cannot agree to these common ethical things that are not dependent on faith but are core morals of humanity. To allow the government to collect taxes for this is not giving up freedom, but a sign that we are a united ethical people and can agree that we should be.
BTW. All the crazed selfish righties/ TP'rs scream and yell about all these taxes they spend on the leech class. What percent of the budget is it? It must be a huge fraction.
FC, In an utopian society it might work, a national government has the infrastructure to support such obligations, but our current government, and I'm not pointing fingers at any side, is a toilet bowl for money..... fraud and waist are rampant . If you have to lean on a secular entity, State administrations are better suited and mindful of their local needs. Private charity is far superior in it's bang per buck and Religious charities are usually at the top of the list among those. Governments have their role, but the personal, non-material needs are only met on a person to person basis - the Biblical model for charity starts with the family/relatives then into the Spiritual family i.e. the local Church body when the individual has no other options.
I agree that there is some need of taxation for certain responsibilities the Federal government has to undertake. The rest can be managed by the states. The real difference between you and I, however, is that I don't believe in writing a blank check to the government for these services - you do. The government has shown time and time again that it is inefficient at best and fraudulent at worst. Raising taxes without ever looking to cut costs is pure and total unbridled stupidity. First design a right-size government, then figure out what taxes need to be to run it.
Then stop using the income tax to screw those who work... and just allocate govt revenues away from waste to those things which are important. the issue is that every time a leftist wants to raise taxes they act like it is to help the needy. We can help those who deserve help and eliminate the income tax. How many times have you wanted to raise taxes to support some piece of crap plan... like a carbon tax. Cut the shit... cut the income tax and lets debate the best way to spend the massive revenue the govt has. We have no problem helping those in needs... its those who suck off the govt trough but could be productive that have to be stopped. Even if it means less votes for dems.