There has been a great deal of talk lately about Rick Perry's belief in God, much of it by Rick Perry.
But belief in God is not the same as following God. The Book of James illustrates that point with a message politicians (and many on the right) should pay close attention to: "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well. Be warm and well fed' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? Faith by itself, if not accompanied by action, is dead. ... You believe that there is one God? Good. Even the demons believe that -- and shudder" (James 2:15-19).
Perry has made it clear he believes in God. He's also made it clear that one of his top political priorities is gutting government programs that help the poor and powerless whom Jesus himself said Christians should care for. Those positions might seem a bit contradictory. But Perry and his allies rationalize this disconnect between the priorities of Perry's Savior and Perry's Campaign by saying Christ's commands were meant for individual Christians, not government -- and so we should cut these government programs because Christ told Christians to care for the poor, and the Church can care for the poor much better than government.
Are you with me so far? Good, because this is normally the point where Democrats and progressives lose the argument by getting distracted by the "Church can do it better" part and focusing on that point, which then reinforces the conservative narrative that progressives think government can solve all problems. Or progressives inexplicably (yet predictably) do exactly what Perry and his allies want by belittling prayer and launching generic attacks against faith and "those" people (as Slate did), basically forcing moderate and even progressive Christians to defend folks on the right with whom they disagree against these condescending attacks from the left.
What we should be saying is that it doesn't matter whether the Church could do a better job caring for the poor or not because the Church isn't doing it. We wouldn't need Section 8 housing if we had enough Habitat homes. We wouldn't need food stamps or school lunches if we had enough soup kitchens. The way to ensure better care for the poor than government can provide is not to hobble government programs but for the Church to make those programs unnecessary. The problem is not that government is doing too much but that the Church is doing too little.
Jesus was a smart guy. The Son of God part aside, he got politics and rhetoric. When his enemies tried to trap him, Jesus didn't counter the Pharisees by saying that their laws were wrong or outdated. Instead, he simply used their own arguments and purported motives to call them to a higher purpose and truer service to God. And in so doing he exposed their hypocrisy and true motives to the people -- which brings us back to Rick Perry.
Guess how much the leader of this "Christian" movement to cut-government-help-for-the-poor-because-the-Church-should-be-doing-it gave to his church from 2007-2009 (the most recent years his tax records are available)? 1/100th of a tithe! Rick Perry gave only one one-thousandth of what he made to his church. The year he made more than $1 million, his total church giving was less than $100 (you read that right -- that's less than 1/10,000th of his income). On the other hand, in 2009 alone he deducted $15,000 in "gifts" to renovate the Governor's mansion where he lived. This is more than he gave to his churches during the last decade. And we wonder why the Church isn't able to do a better job caring for the least and last.
In the New Testament, there is only one sin that gets the divine death penalty: hypocrisy. And Rick Perry is a hypocrite teaching a bastardization of Christianity that should be anathema to most Christians ... if we expose it, and do so in a way that Middle America can relate to. Now, before some of you gleefully take Perry's hypocrisy as proof that all conservative Christians are hypocrites, the fact is that most of them do give to charity (and at higher rates than secular liberals). But that is exactly why highlighting Perry's hypocrisy on this issue can be so effective. The Christian base he is appealing to takes tithing very seriously and gives much more than Perry does despite making much less themselves.
I will leave it up to higher powers than myself to judge his soul, but if Democrats are smart, they will recognize that Perry's hypocrisy can be the undoing of his campaign. Imagine the ad with a bunch of Texas pastors making these points. This is an argument that will win in the heartland.
Final Bible lesson: Jesus taught that we would know false prophets by their fruits and that we must care for the poor and powerless. In fact, how we treat "the least of these" is the sole criterion Christ said he would use to decide who gets into heaven. The fact that Perry has dedicated his life to destroying programs that help "the least of these," instead of personally and politically acting to help them, speaks volumes. You don't pull the safety net out from under someone you care about before you have gotten them across the tightrope, all the while proclaiming constantly and loudly, "Well, somebody ought to be on the ground to catch them."
The values Perry applies to politics are those of the atheist Ayn Rand, not those of Jesus Christ. The values that guide his personal giving are also those of Ayn Rand rather than Christ's. Whether it is his political leadership or personal stewardship, if we ask "What Would Jesus Do?" the answer is the opposite of Rick Perry.
"You believe that there is one God? Good. Even the demons believe that -- and shudder."
The First Word: Is Gov. Perry Big Hat, Small Tithe? | Texas Politics | a ...
Perry puts faith on display but offers little for collection plate ...
Perry has not overburdened the collection plate - San Antonio ...
Rick Perry's Strong Faith Instructs Him To Give Almost Nothing To ...
Gov. Rick Perry's Charitable Giving Under Fire: Is He ... - YouTube
Now that's a ponzi scheme.
"Think"? Not hardly. Thinking creepily, yes.
You torture the word. If you were really 'fair-minded', you would see the wealth of good so many churches, and/or Christian organizations do for the hungry, needy, etc. They even have groups opposing the modern slave trade, human trafficking, etc.
Wise up.
Your liberal hatred and intolerance (real definition & the Leftist tactical redefinition of the word) shows all too blatantly.
Separation between church and state is becoming smaller and smaller (and will be even smaller if republicants get their way), so tax the churches. They can certainly afford it.
"Separation between church and state "? It was invented from one settlement from 1 founding father, Thomas Jefferson, in a private letter to Danbury Baptists in January 1, 1802. Liberals twisted the ACTUAL Constitution to fit their agenda{s}. For years, even decades, they typically quoted or paraphrased Jefferson's paraphrase of it AS the ACTUAL Constitution. Now, their deception is exposed so much, they still use it as a mantra, but they 'tweaked' their tactic to dodge past deception, but hardly enough to exonerate their past or continued present deception.
Please do a lot more research into it.
The ACTUAL First Amendment says, with comments (Constitution in CAPS for identification and emphasis):
# "CONGRESS"- A specific *LEGISLATIVE* body
# "SHALL MAKE NO LAW"- Literal legislation/"LAW" & specific *action* of THAT *legislative* body.
# "RESPECTING THE *ESTABLISHMENT* OF RELIGION"- Establish? That seems to refer to what they objected to in the first place- an "ESTABLISH[ed]" official state church, as in England's Church of England at the time. It isn't forbidding people of faith or groups from advocating their views in the 'public square'. That's a liberal lie.
# "OR *PROHIBITING* THE *FREE* EXERCISE THEREOF;" Opps. That's what is TOTALLY skipped & ignored by the liberal abuse, misuse, and misapplication of, the supposed First Amendment, by the tactical use of a phrase Jefferson used in a letter. You ignored it by repeating what the liberal agenda wants you to use in substitution for the real First Amendment.
Then, NO one person did any passing, but committee(s) and Senate, etc. Jefferson would only be 1 voice at best.
Founding father, Patrick Henry did say:
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Ayn Rand was very far from any kind of a conservative.
Too many Christians confuse the message of Ayn Rand with that of Jesus Christ. That's because they don't read the Bible. They "believe" what they are told about the Bible. When they find out that Jesus didn't say those things, they leave Christianity and become full atheists. Something Ayn Rand wanted. That what the Right Wing and the conservative cause are good for. Leading us away from Lord Jesus toward some foolish ponzi scheme called Objectivism.
As for me and my house, we serve the Lord. We do it gladly and with humble gr
I have been a conservative since the 70s. In that time, I have met a fair number of other conservatives, and read things that were written by many more. I know NONE who are fans of Ayn Rand.
And for you to call me a liar on the point is a joke. There are a variety of sources of conservative thought. Locke, Burke, the writings of the Founding Fathers, Buckley, the anti-totalitarian writers (including those who were socialists), even some of the ancients such as Plutarch (hence my name). Ayn Rand is not on the list. There is nothing conservative about Ayn Rand, something that would be quite clear to anyone who actually read much of anything she wrote.
Posted the following a few days ago in response to someone making the "the Church can care for the poor much better than government" argument under the guise of the call of action was completely voluntary and directed to individuals:
“Interesting how well VOLUNTARILY supporting the old, the very young, the infirm, the poor, the working poor, and the middle class has functioned."
As long as the need exists, stubbornly refusing to address that need is selfish. Actively working towards hindering, cutting, or removing those agencies that ARE addressing the need is just cruel.
signed,
a Liberal Democrat
"MODERATE" or "a LIBERAL Democrat"?!
New Testament teaches whether or not "[Jesus] BELONGS to everyone" or not.
1) In Christian NT teaching, either WE "BELONG" TO him, or we don't.
2) It also says how we are, or are not.
When theological liberals deny some/all of the essential doctrines of Christianity, and liberal denominations do as well, sorry, but that's no sign of actual Christianity.
JESUS:
"I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. NO ONE comes to the Father, except through ME."- John 14:6
No matter how Obama rationalized that verse away in 2007/2008.
"To as many as RECEIVED *him*, to THEM he gave the power to become the children of God, TO THOSE who BELIEVE on HIS name."- John 1:12
NT Jesus: "You MUST be born again, or you CANNOT see the kingdom of God. ..UNLESS you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins. ...He that believes on ME HAS eternal life."
It DOES matter what you believe about the Christian gospel, salvation, and God-Father, Son, Holy Spirit:
"For God [the Father-vs 23] is spirit, and they who worship him MUST worship him in spirit and TRUTH."- Jn 4:23-24.
There can be a lot of differences on other things, but biblical unity is based on essential doctrines. Paul said false gospels & "ANOTHER Jesus" doesn't save, but damns-Gal 1:6-9, 2 Cor 11:3-4,13-15
It's a red herring - the real issue is - what is the role of American government in caring for Americans in need vs. the role of the individual or the organization.
This important task cannot be left to churches, charities or individuals - as a tax-payer, I appreciate the help, but the task belongs to my government, something I already pay for, on purpose, to ensure the assistance I have for my fellow Americans in need is there when they need it, and not filtered through the churches, charities and individuals prejudices, perceptions and ideological tests.
There is no other fair way.