Waldo, can you give me the Scriptural reference where Jesus said that Christian charity is to be funded by the state?

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 8am

Waldo,

I second what Ward said—nobody has the right to steal money from the taxpayer to fund their chosen charity, and Christ was very clear that charity was an individual responsiblity.

Regards,
Brian

Posted by Brian L. on 2 February 2007 @ 9am

Ward preempted me with his comment. Perhaps, too, Waldo, you can explain why Matthew 25 is a legal authority, yet biblical prohibitions against homosexuality are not.

If you’re going to inject religion into public life, Waldo, you have some obligation to: (a) get it right; and (b) do so consistently.

Posted by James Young on 2 February 2007 @ 9am

If you have questions for Rev. Williams, I suggest you direct them to him.

If you’re going to inject religion into public life, Waldo, you have some obligation to…do so consistently.

James, that’s just bizarre. If you’re going to talk about fiscal conservatism, I suggest you do so consistently. If you’re going to talk about monkeys, I suggest you do so consistently. If you’re going to talk about naked singularities appearing in your bathtub, I suggest that you do so consistently. Unless, y’know, sometimes you wanted to talk about other things.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

So, I take it everyone here opposes Bush’s faith-based initiatives, then? I’m quite happy if that’s the case.

Regardless, however much you might want to say that liberals shouldn’t quote the Bible without condemning homosexuals, calling someone out as a hypocrite doesn’t require you to agree with *either* side.

Also, James Young, if you’re going to complain about Waldo injecting religion into public life, you should “(a) get it right; and (b) do so consistently,” and call out every Republican who is happy to thump the Bible and yet advocates the killing of another human being.

Posted by Ben C. on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

Waldo,

FWIW, I went to Rev. Williams site and refused to comment because it required yet ~another~ registration.

So, since you posted it, and since you didn’t contracdict it, we had to assume you agreed with his position. Otherwise, seems you would have said so.

Or you could say so now.

Ward

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

So, since you posted it, and since you didn’t contracdict it, we had to assume you agreed with his position.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but responding as if I was the author of the statement in question simply doesn’t make sense.

This law would prevent a charitable organization from giving a dying man a ride to the hospital if said dying man cannot demonstrate that he is in the country legally.

Would Jesus leave the man by the side of the road to die? Or would he say that it wouldn’t be fair to the taxpayers to give the man a ride?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

If you’re going to inject religion into public life, Waldo, you have some obligation to: (a) get it right; and (b) do so consistently.

This from someone who infers that the United Church of Christ isn’t a Christian religion. (Either that or that Barrack Obama is not a Christian)

I guess this means it’s only right when he says it, or when it is to his standard.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

[quote]This law would prevent a charitable organization from giving a dying man a ride to the hospital if said dying man cannot demonstrate that he is in the country legally.[/quote]

Waldo, are you sure you wish to engage in this kind of hysterics? The scenario you list is rather odd, considering most “charitable” organizations are not involved in driving dying individuals to the hospital.

;)

Regards,
Brian

Posted by Brian L. on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

(grumble - sorry for mangling the codes in the last post. I guess I’m supposed to use regular HTML?)

:)

Posted by Brian L. on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

Holy Godess, Where is the humanity in this clearly anti-humanity bill? Let’s check to see if the dying man/woman is a republican or not too, while we are at it.

Also, I guess this means that whole ‘culture of life’ is only for the unborn? (and an advertising slogan) When are we going to protect our brothers and sisters regardless of who they are or where they came from? What if it is a pregnant alien Muslim woman in trouble?

Posted by Mark Brooks on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

The scenario you list is rather odd, considering most “charitable” organizations are not involved in driving dying individuals to the hospital.

As Pastor Williams explained, there are certainly charitable organizations that would be in precisely that business. Pick just about any homeless shelter, soup kitchen, or homeless aid organization. They are often the first and last line of protection and assistance for society’s most vulnerable people. They would need to deny any assistance to people not of this country — a bowl of soup to a starving man, a warm bed on a freezing night to an infant.

There’s nothing Christian about that.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

“This law would prevent a charitable organization from giving a dying man a ride to the hospital if said dying man cannot demonstrate that he is in the country legally.”

No, it would just mean the state wasn’t buying the gas. Charities would simply have to review how they do business. If they want the state funding, then they abide by the state laws.

Jesus wouldn’t leave the man on the side of the road to die. But he wouldn’t ring up Caesar to ask for gas money.

I my personal opinion, I think the church has abdicated too much social responsibility to the government anyway. If the funds are there, sure, use them. But the church should never be in the business of having to depend on the government to carry out her mission.

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

Jesus wouldn’t leave the man on the side of the road to die. But he wouldn’t ring up Caesar to ask for gas money.

Quote of the day. Thanks for the chuckle again, Ward!

To those of you on the other side of the aisle who oppose this measure, I understand your complaints, but don’t think they’re entirely justified. For starters, as we’ve explained previously, there is no “right” for a charitable organization to receive money from the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. Charities are exactly what they sound like—sponsored by people. If you, individually, would like to subsidize the assistance of people who are breaking the law, you’re welcome to do so out of your own pocket. Don’t force the rest of us to pay for it, though (and I’m referencing specifically the recent situation in Herndon)

Respectfully,
Brian

Posted by Brian L. on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

Yeah, really funny there, Ward.

The choice is: Help the most needy, and lose your state funding. This must be that ‘compassionate conservatism’ I have heard so much about.

Hilarious.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

Mark,

How are illegal aliens “the most” needy? If we were to all start accepting payments only in cash, and not turning in our “fair share” to the IRS, would that make us as “needy” as they are? Besides, I thought all of you Liberals believed in “equality,” not preferential treatment.

;)

B.

Posted by Brian L. on 2 February 2007 @ 10am

Mark,

Once again I’d ask for a Scripture refererence that says Christian charity is to be funded by the state.

Fact is, if the state is funding it, then the “Christian” really isn’t giving at all.

Ward

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 11am

Ward: Yeah…xanga’s annoying that way.

As for using either Matthew 25 or..better yet…Luke 10:25-37…they’re at the heart of the Christian understanding of salvation, eternal life, and responsibility towards both our neighbor and the stranger in our midst.

You’re correct in stating that there’s no legal weight to any of this…but for most Christians, meaning a substantial portion of the base of the Republican party, these texts are more important than secular law. There’s also a growing discomfort with defining the interests of Christian citizens narrowly around abortion and gay marriage. That well is starting to run dry.

I don’t think the Republican leadership yet grasps their vulnerability on this issue. For Christians whose faith is just a mask for reflexive nationalism, such positions probably aren’t a problem. But for those who really grasp what Jesus was all about…meaning most evangelicals…legislation like this could radically demotivate what has been a reliable core.

Posted by Rev. David Williams on 2 February 2007 @ 11am

All I can give you is my opinion, Ward. Since a lot of problems are caused by society, government has traditionally covered some of the costs. It is not wholly paid for by the government in any case.

And I ask you again, is it Christian to deny potentially life-saving treatment to someone because of their status or lack of it? Is that the way Jesus teaches us to act toward our fellow man?

Posted by Mark Brooks on 2 February 2007 @ 11am

David,

Count me as one of those Christian Republicans who is increasingly disillusioned with the party. I’ve been doing a lot of soul searching lately about what that means for me and about where I should be directing my time and energy. But that’s another story.

This still comes down to the fundamental issue that the church should not be dependent upon the government for the funding of its mission.

I have to laugh at the judgmental attitudes of non-Christians telling us what is and isn’t Christlike. On another day, another thread, these same folks will be arguing for the (non-existant Constitutional Clause of) separation of church and state.

The Scripture tells us that true religion is indeed caring for the widow and the orphan. And the story of the Good Samaritan makes it pretty clear that runs across class and ethnic lines.

But the fact remains that it is OUR responsiblity and not that of the government. Scripture makes absolutely no provision for the government funding of our “true religion.”

So I have no problem with, and in fact applaud and participate in, the ministries such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities. May God bless and provide for them all.

But why, in any stretch of the imagination, should our government be funding care for those who have broken our laws?

Christians are also told to be mindful of their resources and not to be wasteful. What happens when the government runs out of money because services have been provided to illegals. What happens when there’s no longer funding of any source to provide for our own citizens?

Where does this all end?

Is this provision the wisest way to deal with illegal immigration? No, perhaps not.

But just exactly where is that line drawn?

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 11am

@ Rev. Williams

I agree that “for most Christians, meaning a substantial portion of the base of the Republican party, these texts are more important than secular law,” but let’s be clear: Although they may be more “important,” ultimately the vast, vast majority of of Christians in this country, Republican or not, live happily under the laws of man, not God.

Posted by Judge Smails on 2 February 2007 @ 12pm

…HB2937, which would cut off state funding to any charitable organization that indirectly provides any assistance to undocumented immigrants:

“Indirectly” makes this easier for me to say - “it’s a bad bill.” Indirectly suggests unknowingly. And I’m fine with that. It’s not direct assistance from government like section 8 vouchers or similar progams with long waiting lists and limited resources, or in-state tuition rates for illegals, where an illegal would be directly competing with a citizen (I am opposed to that).

It’s all fine and good to take cheap shots at Illegals this way by cutting out the support systems for those at the bottom of society- but in the long run it’s just bullshit. It hasn’t accomplished anything. If they seriously wanted to deal with the issue of illegal immigration they would enforce the laws already on the books, and crackdown on employers who exploit illegals with Very Large Fines and Criminal Penalties. The well would dry up and there wouldn’t be an incentive to come here illegally. That’s what I think they should be doing as opposed to picking on charities that assist the indigent.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 2 February 2007 @ 12pm

TrvlnMn is right - this bill won’t change a single thing about illegal immigration. It’s your typical Richmond GOP effort to put a bandaid on sucking chest wound. Grandstanding and puffing up their chests, kicking the weakest people they can find rather than actually doing something about the problem. Sort of like responding to higher divorce rates by attacking gay people.

The only answer is to enforce the laws we already have on the books and begin a major, major crackdown on the businesses that hire illegal workers. The illegal immigrants have nothing to lose when they come here. Cracking down on them gets you nowhere. The only way to reduce the problem is to destroy most of the market for their labor - by giving massive fines and even prison sentences to people and companies that hire illegals.

The American criminals (those who do the hiring) involved in the business are the ones with something to lose. Threaten them in a serious way and you have a real solution.

Posted by Jack on 2 February 2007 @ 12pm

Ward:

Though I’ll freely admit to my progressive proclivities, I think you and I seem to agree about the necessity of the church maintaining a studious independence from the state. The risk is that a church will find itself beholden to two masters. And one can’t serve two masters, eh?

That was always the risk behind the push for “faith-based” initiatives. At some point, they’re going to start yanking on that mammon leash. Modern antidisestablishmentarianism is a real danger for the integrity of the church, even if getting to use my favorite third-grade spelling word in context is a hoot.

Judge: Ever read St. Augustine’s “City of God?” You’re right that we live happily under the laws of a just state…and it’s one of the reasons we flourish here. But where those laws conflict, we’re obligated to favor God. There was a telling comment on my blog from a Chinese Christian…where being a Christian requires accepting risk for one’s witness. He saw this and other similar VA legislation as demanding the same risks he has to take. That, alone, should give legislators pause about their approach.

Posted by Rev. David Williams on 2 February 2007 @ 12pm

Ward the Moral Cripple once again does an outstanding turn as posterboy for why atheists such as myself occasionally catch ourselves slipping into a less than charitable opinion of Christians.

Posted by MB on 2 February 2007 @ 1pm

And why MB, does my opinion make me the “Moral Cripple?”

If indeed you are an atheist, how are you equipped to judge Christianity? Did you read anything of what I said?

Or did you just spout off your hate speech and namecalling because it’s just easier that way?

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 1pm

Ward? I’m a human being who has the potential to be affected by your particular brand of active ignorance. I’m quite comfortable taking that as the qualification by which I can judge you (I know it’s uncomfortable for you, being the judged, instead of the judge).

Your opinion shows you to be a moral cripple, Ward, in that you appear to think it reasonable to restrict someone from basic life preserving services because he doesn’t have proper documentation. You know, not all that long ago, your kind (and yes, I am pretty clear on your “kind”) thought a nation that was always asking for “Your papers, please.” a grave threat to the world.

And now you’re just like them.

Moral.fucking.cripple.

Posted by MB on 2 February 2007 @ 1pm

You’re an illegal alien?

And you’ve missed the point by far. FIND ME ONE PLACE WHERE I EVER SAID THE SERVICES SHOULD BE DENIED????

I’m simply stating that it’s the responsibility of the church, not the government. As a Christian, I am in fact saying that it’s OUR responsiblity. Not that of the government.

In fact, I’m willing to go so far as to state that if the church had lived up to her responsibility over the decades, government assistance wouldn’t be needed.

It’s a simple concept really.

And one I can communicate without Nazi references and profanity.

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 1pm

MB, your papers are not in order.

Posted by Judge Smails on 2 February 2007 @ 1pm

MB,

You’re as bad an impediment to discourse on the internet as any. You’re not being constructive, you’re massively misrepresenting Ward’s position, and in general, you’re being a huge ass.

You prove once again why public internet forums often turn to total crap. Please go away, and please stop making atheists look like a bunch of angry, rebelling teenagers.

Posted by Ben C. on 2 February 2007 @ 1pm

No, not an illegal alien (tho’ indeed, I am, a citizen of another country, in addition to being a US citizen). Ward, you’re supporting a bill that essentially kills any non-profit that happens to deliver services to undocumented aliens. That’s not too much of a stretch, and it certainly adds up to advocating that services should be denied. If you don’t think so, I suggest you better acquaint yourself the non-profit social services sector. If private contributions flowed freely, and gov’t funding was but a tiny part of any operating budget, I’d be less appalled than I am. But that’s not our reality.

We do agree that, if the church had lived up to its self proclaimed obligations, this would likely be a much less contentious debate. But it hasn’t, and it almost certainly won’t. So while you’re busy kvetching about the failures of your brethren, I’m more interested in making sure that people - human beings, regardless of legal status - get what they need to live on this planet. Don’t like? Just come out and say it directly, at least.

Judge Smails - oh, they’re in order. It’s just that so few people can read them, these days.

Ben C. - thanks eversomuch for your concern. I can only hope to live up to the fine example of comprehension and politeness that you just set.

Posted by MB on 2 February 2007 @ 2pm

I find it funny that the side that doesn’t want religion controlling our government is now referencing Christian literature to to make their point and influence our laws.

Posted by whackette on 2 February 2007 @ 3pm

MB, you’re so off base I hardly know where to start.

If you read back through the comments, I haven’t advocated one way or the other with specific regard to the bill. I have addressed the principle that I believe the church shouldn’t depend on government funding. And, I’ve asked questions with regard to just how far this should go.

You may have inferred from that that I am endorsing this bill. But I haven’t said that one way or the other.

And I’m afraid I’m far more familiar with the non-profit social services sector than you quite understand. While it is not my current profession, I have extensive experience as 1) a social worker, 2) a non profit volunteer, 3) a fund raiser and 4) a board director and chair for more than one non profit group.

So, yes, I know the system. I’ve seen it work and I’ve seen it abused at the ground level.

What you seem to be unable to, or at least unwilling to, comprehend is that the government cannot and, in fact, should not try to meet every societal need.

Because I believe it is my responsibility as a Christian, I give both time and money to charitable causes. Quite frankly, if the government was a little less involved in my life, I’d be giving more.

So don’t sit there across the Internet and try to judge me based on principles and concepts that you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand.

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 3pm

I find it funny that the side that doesn’t want religion controlling our government is now referencing Christian literature to to make their point and influence our laws.

I’m not sure that you understand the logic here. I don’t want religion to influence our laws in this instance. Rather, I believe that Pastor Williams makes a good point in writing that Christians cannot both favor this law and act in a way that is consistent with Jesus’ teachings. The fulcrum on which religion rests, in this matter, is on the individual, not on government.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 2007 @ 3pm

Ward, against my better judgment (based on the posts of yours that I’ve read around VA blogs), I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, here.

We do agree that the church shouldn’t rely on the government for support. So when should they start paying taxes like the rest of us?

As to your involvement with the social services sector, this means that you either agree that this would be a death penalty to non-profits, or you’re being dishonest if you say it wouldn’t. Yes, I know, you haven’t explicitly taken a position one way or the other. Time to pony up. You support this bill or not? Do you think it would significantly impede the ability of existing non-profits to deliver their services or not?

I am neither unable nor unwilling to say that the government should not be the vehicle through which every societal need is met. But I do not think that it’s an inherently bad conduit for meeting certain basic needs. As you yourself have noted, the church has done a piss poor job of it, so I’m not sure you’re standing on solid ground by objecting to the government trying to meet these needs, when no one else has been able to do so.

As to your objection to sitting here and judging you from across the internet, I’ll kindly invite you to fuck off. Wasn’t too long ago I saw you terribly comfortable in pronouncing - across the internet, natch - that I and my partner shouldn’t be able to enjoy the same legal rights and protections that you do.

Posted by MB on 2 February 2007 @ 3pm

MB,

I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

As for your telling me to eff-off. Yeah, that’s gonna get me to value your opinion.

I’m done here.

Posted by Ward Smythe on 2 February 2007 @ 3pm

Waldo, I can be in favor of the law and still act in accordance with Christ’s teachings. Christ taught for us to love and help one another. (In fact, this was supposed to be the way people could tell we are Christians.) He didn’t teach us to take someone else’s money to do it.

Posted by whackette on 2 February 2007 @ 3pm

Waldo, I can be in favor of the law and still act in accordance with Christ’s teachings.

There are many instances in which the law varies from Christianity. It is my assertion that this is one of them, and clearly you believe otherwise.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 February 2007 @ 3pm

So, in other words, you got nothing. Surprise.

And as to the list of people whose estimation I value? Rock bottom, Ward. Try not to cry yourself to sleep. Honestly, I wouldn’t give a damn about what you thought of me (or pretty much anything else having to do with the specific you), but for your clear interest in imposing your own twisted morality on the rest of us. The way to work against that, though, isn’t to try and ingratiate myself or win your approval. Rather, it’s to show what a ridiculous set of ideas you’re espousing. Keep the fodder coming, Ward.

Posted by MB on 2 February 2007 @ 4pm

Look, that law doesn’t stop me from helping someone in need. That is what Jesus said to do.

We shouldn’t be making our laws according to their agreement with Christianity or any other religion.

Posted by whackette on 2 February 2007 @ 4pm

“We shouldn’t be making our laws according to their agreement with Christianity or any other religion.”

That statement does not belong in the mouth of a Republican unless s/he is willing to admit the Marshall/Newman Amendment was wrong, faith-based initiatives are wrong, and the dominant critique of Roe v. Wade from the conservative side is also wrong.

I am a bit surprised by the conservative reaction to this issue, especially on this thread. I thought faith-based initiatives had more support among Republicans, since their ideology tends to believe that private, non-governmental organizations can use the money more effectively than bureaucratic groups. (Is that no longer true?) I would have also assumed that conservatives would oppose any government dictating to religious charities what they can or cannot do once they are appropriated funds. (Am I wrong about that, too?)

For example, a Catholic charity receiving funds ought not be forced to hire, or even have to interview, non-Catholics because of a state’s non-discrimination statutes. Who the charity hires is not germane to the social benefit provided, and it is therefore none of the state’s business.

The bill prohibits the allocations of funds with the “intent of circumventing the provisions of this section.” What if the charity did not intend to circumvent the law - the charity merely set up a soup kitchen - and an undocumented immigrant walked in? Are Del. Miller and the other conservatives on this thread actually saying that the charity should ask for ID before handing someone a bowl of soup? Or that a church’s program to help non-English speakers learn English should ask to see a green card before addressing the ABCs?

I for one still can’t understand how Goldwater Republicans - who seem to be the dominant strain represented in this thread - can stand being cheek-to-jowl with Bush/Dobson Republicans. I’m not saying the Democratic Party is one big happy family - you won’t see me supporting Hillary Clinton anytime this century - but our differences are more a matter of degree rather than a matter of stark ideological contrast.

Posted by Adam Sharp on 2 February 2007 @ 5pm

Adam, I voted NO so I can say that.

Posted by whackette on 2 February 2007 @ 5pm

whackette - you voted NO? Good for you! It was worth reading thru the rest of the stuff here just to read that :)

Sorry Waldo. Didn’t mean to get off topic.

Posted by Vivian J. Paige on 2 February 2007 @ 9pm

Adam:

The bill prohibits the allocations of funds with the “intent of circumventing the provisions of this section.” What if the charity did not intend to circumvent the law - the charity merely set up a soup kitchen - and an undocumented immigrant walked in? Are Del. Miller and the other conservatives on this thread actually saying that the charity should ask for ID before handing someone a bowl of soup? Or that a church’s program to help non-English speakers learn English should ask to see a green card before addressing the ABCs?

Yes, that’s exactly what they are suggesting. The law is unenforceable by the government itself, unless it wants to set up an undercover police force to go around to all the non-profits and monitor who they are serving. I’d like to see the Republicans attempt that exit poll. (Yummmm… Looks like a good bowl of soup. BTW, you an illegal? Got yer papers on ya?)

So essentially it relies on the non-profits themselves to do the police work internally. And no one I know gets into indigenous non-profit services in order to fill out papers in triplicate to satisfy The Man.

It’s a bad bill, not just because its intention sucks like a shop vac and it doesn’t even address its alleged target of illegal immigration, but also because it can not be enforced adequately. These guys have sawdust for brains. Get them out of office quick!

Posted by TLPatten on 3 February 2007 @ 6pm