This is why six pastors recently launched an "Open Letter from 1,000 Pastors" to let our political leaders know this isn't true. (Pastors can click here to join them.) These pastors believe that churches must provide strong leadership in responding to poverty, and they are doing so, but the government also has responsibilities -- vital ones. The letter reads:
We are local pastors. Our lives are committed to our churches and communities ... We work, pray, and do whatever we can to remain faithful to the responsibility of every Christian to help the poor. Still, we can't meet the crushing needs by ourselves. We do our best to feed the hungry, but charitable nutrition programs only make up 6% of total feeding programs in the country while the government makes up 94% ...We have seen this support allow young people to be the first members of their families to get college degrees, ensure mothers can feed their children a healthy diet, enable those with disabilities to live fulfilling lives, give much-needed medical care to those who can't afford it, support seniors, provide housing for families, and help people in finding a job.
... There is more need today than Churches can meet by themselves. This is why we join in the "Circle of Protection."
The local pastors who are signing this letter are close enough to the problems of poverty to really know what some of these vital programs mean for the poorest and vulnerable people. They also know that anyone who says churches can do it all is simply not close enough to the poor to know the magnitude of the need, especially in tough economic times like today where poverty is on the rise again.
Important decisions about the federal budget will be made in the next few weeks. The voices and actions by all of you have already made a big impact in Washington, but more work is needed. If you are a pastor, please sign the "Open Letter from 1,000 Pastors." Pastors need to squash the rumor that only churches and charities have a responsibility to the poor. This rumor is both bad theology and bad public policy. If you aren't a pastor, forward this email to your pastor or sign on to the Circle of Protection yourself.
There is great need in this country, and it is growing -- needs that are not being met. Individuals and churches, who are themselves experiencing tough times, still need to be more generous and compassionate than ever. But churches are also called to prophetic action -- to challenge public policies that continue to reward the wealthy and target the poor with painful cuts. So, it's time to affirm public-private partnerships that work, and not abandon our public responsibility to the poor.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
Jim Wallis: Matthew 25: Why We Went To the White House
Rev. Chuck Currie: A Pastor's Plea to The President: Protect the Poor in Budget Debate
The denomination that gets more money will get bigger. This could result in a "Walmart Effect," where one church gains more power than the others.
Religions need to stop exploiting the poor under the guise of "help."
There are no words to communicate my disgust ... words fail me.
There is too much spending, everywhere, in every department, and it all needs to be cut.
There isn't.
Every one that has actually made a fortune was able to do so because of either the education they received (publicly supported in some way), the infrastructure they utilized (publicly funded in some way) or by the resources contained within the borders of this country.
Paying taxes is a way of giving back in order to continue to allow others to have the same opportunities for success as every other successful (if success = rich) person.
And your "Scrooge McDuck" analogy? The wealth more than likely came from inheritence. Being born into the right family is hardly a measure of success, wouldn't you say?
It's not that I want to have people's hard-earned income taxed and used to re-build and maintain infrastructure ... It's not that I want to have people's hard-earned income taxed to fund education and open up more opportunities for others to feel success ... It's not that I want to tax people's hard-earned income to feed, clothe and heal children who have no choice in their situation.
What I would like to see is to have people's HARDLY-earned income taxed and used for those civic responsibilities I listed.
By the way, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are worth BILLIONS .... WIC is getting cut by hundreds of MILLIONS ... you do know the difference between BILLIONS and MILLIONS?
I know of a church that had a bake sale raised 400 dollars for a member's 90,000 dollar medical bill due to his having no medical insurance due to pre existing medical conditions and the members all drove home feeling good about themselves for their charity work. but when it came time to vote for universal health care, no way they would do that.
that person will now have to divorce his wife so he does not leave her with a huge medical bill. not sure even that works. only in america the greatest nation on earth if you dont count the wars for corp profits and mega corp profits off the sick and needy.
research needs to be done as to how much chruches actually give to the poor. bet it is less than 5%.
most tax free money goes for wages and admin costs. preaching once a week for 20 to 45 minutes is a good gig if you can get it. but you have to work on sundays. bummer. but you get sun afternoon off for golf with the rich givers, the 10%ers. then they give you a free meal at their home and you dont have to stay and do the dishes.
Bless your heart, you obviously have never experienced what churches like mine do for people without any regard for their background or beliefs.
And I challenge you to give one example of any REAL help that your church can provide that a secular organization cant.
But I can start one on my side. The Salvation Army discriminates against gays. Catholic organizations are chosen to shut down rather then obey laws to not discriminate against gays...oops that TWO (well I do have so many examples).
If people are angry at Christian evangelicals, they have a good reason to be, The actions don't match the words. Frankly Jesus does not care who it is that cares for the poor as long as it gets done. In his own culture, it was mandatory that the rich provide for the poor. In our own culture, Adam Smith said much the same thing.
If the church won't do it, then the government needs to. The tax exempt status for churches should be taken away. Too many pastors are more concerned with building big ego monstrosities to themselves than helping others.
I would have done the same thing. There's plenty around that DO walk the walk.
You should find one.
"Frankly Jesus does not care who it is that cares for the poor as long as it gets done."
That's incorrect.
Our humanity should not care who it is that cares for the poor as long as it gets done.
It's true that some government programs are run inefficiently (not enough % reaching those in need) but you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. And you can't assume that it is a inherent, systemic problem when it very well may be the incompetency of improvable or replaceable human beings that result in those inefficiencies.
And frankly, who the hell is anyone to say what they are or are not entitled to? Everyone gets born into a circumstance that they didn't create. I get it, maybe you came from nothing and you work hard and accumulate some wealth. We're glad for you. Continue to. But if you have plenty ("freedom from want") you will risk degrading your quality of life by focusing on the unfairness of tax codes much more than those taxes actually will.
A hands off approach to public welfare isn't a new proposal, it's been tried for about 99% of history. Unfortunately human kind's default setting is a pretty dark place.
People like Mr. Bartholomew fail to cite the benefit of government in moderation - and as proposed by this President a 39% tax rate on individuals earning over 200,000 or family's making 250 is actually moderate. It will not deprive you of your surplus. One's selfishness might.
Profound.
This dark place where mankind falls whenever we become compalcent is the only reason for rules and laws.
Fanned.
The minute the government can tell a church how to spend it's resources, you've just gutted the 1st Amendment.
Relgion guts the 1st Amendment when it denies any rituals to a member with whom it disagrees (i.e. Kerry and communion incident).
"Christians who consider themselves pro-life only need to know one thing: It is estimated that the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children) has saved more than 200,000 babies from dying at birth."
And one can imagine that is helps others to be healthier with a better chance at a healthy life.
Republican politicians and those who serve them do not care about women, babies or children. It's clear by their actions that they care only for money (greed) and themselves (power). They believe in "any means necessary" to increase their greed and retain their power.
Thanks to Jim Wallis for calmly speaking out for truth.
I've come to the conclusion that the reason "christians" oppose government aid to the poor is because they don't really care about the poor. They care about themselves. If they do something "charitable" as an individual they feel like they're storing up salvation in heaven and they get to feel good about themselves. The fact that they could be helping people a thousandfold more if they worked within a centralized program doesn't matter to them. Because American "christians" by and large don't care about Christ's message, except to the extent that they get to buy "salvation" for their own sorry selves.
Is this the same "christianity" that supported slavery, Jim Crow laws, anti-gay sentiment, and bible teaching in schools as part of the curriculum?
Is this the same "christianity" that opposes abortion rights for women while also opposing birth control, sex education, planned parenthood, and yet has a fast growing populaiton of unwed mothers?
christianity is not a solution to anything but the weak minded.. . .or the wealthy.
----------------------
---It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.---
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
A weak excuse, at best. You need to keep looking until you do, if that's your criteria.
Walk the walk.