A Simple Question for Christian conservatives. Why do you want to deny Jesus Christs' Commands ??

John,

Religion and a personal relationship with Christ as Savior are two totally different things. Much damage has been done in the world and in this country by religion, and also for those who use Christianity as a political tool to garner voters. Jesus literally would weep, and just as He threw the money changers out of the temple, He would do the same thing, and throw them right off their platforms. The damage that been done to the message of Christ by the behavior of people who claim to be Christian is deplorable.

I'm just as much a sinner as anyone else, and I certainly don't always conduct myself or utilize my time as my Lord would wish of me. I fall short everyday, but having said that, I never want to think that I turned someone away from the saving grace of Christ because of something I've done or said.

King David, CowboyGrampa knows what he believes but he's never even come close to Westboro Baptist. They aren't even Baptist, they're a cult that is comprised pretty much of one family, and does not but spread hatred.

Yes, that might not be a bad idea, i dont like farm subsidies. Ethanol is pointless. Like i said the responsibility of individuals not government.

Like i said the responsibility of individuals not government.

As a democratic republic, our government is created and maintained by the individuals.

He said render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's.

Which was an answer to the question 'is it right/moral to pay taxes?' (the answer being - this is not a moral question). So that doesn't really address the question as to why not allow the government to help feed the poor with tax money (especially if it benefits the country as a whole)?

When attempting to usurp the will of many, it is much easier to manipulate them with mythology than fact.

If you were to tell them outright that they would be used to help the wealthy, the corporations, our politicians, and our so called leaders, to abscond with the wealth, resources, and legacy of the latest and greatest society they wouldn't do it.

Christianity is merely the trojan horse greed rides inside of as it sheers us all and fleeces America.

But when that "charity" can't provide enough food for those without it and the government can than you are unchristian to think those not benefitting from said "charity" should go without just because you don't want government involved.

Jeff,

1. Private charity has and can handle things.

2. Charity is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal government.

3. From my seat, it's smarter for me to give directly to folks in need for two reasons:

a. It's more efficient. Gift goes from me, directly to the person in need, bypassing multiple layers (rake-offs) of bureaucrats.

b. I am inherently more qualified to determine who is worthy of my gift than some government bureaucrat.

Mike-1499840;

My understanding of the Brooks data is that he includes donations to a church as charity. Is donating to your church really charity? Sure some of the money is used for charitable purposes, but if you take out the donations that the church uses on itself I think the numbers would even out. I realize that every congregation is different but I see too many houses of worship that are really mansions.

MnMan,

Why would it even out...are you saying few if any liberals give at church and all their donations are to non-church charities?

Regards,

Mike

Mike-1499840;

...are you saying few if any liberals give at church and all their donations are to non-church charities?

Not at all. My contention is that giving to churches cannot be viewed as purely charitable because a percentage (50% ?) of that money is spent on the church itself and thus benefits the giver.

The Brooks data seems to indicate that church-goers give more. A Pew Research Center study of political ideology shows 37% of the religious are conservative and only 20% are liberal. It is in that 17% difference that I posit a leveling of the variance in giving by ideology.

Here is a brief analysis of Brooks work (third post from the bottom):

This problem comes to a head in Brooks probit and regression models analyzing SCCBS data (pp. 192-193). After controlling for a lot of things that you might not want to control for (i.e., being religious or secular), Brooks concludes that liberals and conservatives are not distinguishable in whether they have made any donation in the last year. This is literally true, but he fails to note that in the model liberals give significantly more than moderates, if a traditional .05 significance level is used, while conservatives do not differ significantly from moderates. Yet in Table 6, the significance level used as a threshold for identification with an asterisk is .01, not .05, as he uses in some of the other tables. In one table (p. 197), Brooks even reports significance at the .10 level, as well as at the .05 and .01 levels.

I can't rule out the possibility that Brooks changed his reporting of the significance level so he wouldn't have to explain why, after lots and lots of controls, liberals were more likely to have made a donation than moderates, while conservatives did not differ significantly from either liberals or moderates.

And this somewhat contradictory bit:

Brooks somewhat misleading reporting continues when he presents the results of the model predicting the dollar amount of donations. Brooks says that in the continuous dollar model, conservatives are slightly (but distinguishably) more generous than liberals. (p. 192) Again, this appears to be literally true. But what the model actually shows is that liberals give significantly more money than moderates, while conservatives give significantly more than both moderates and liberals. Moderates would seem to be the ungenerous ones, not liberals.

I think you'll find an interesting tid-bit or two in the link ;)

MnMan,

Thanx for the work putting this together...I'll check out the link. One thing I have found...very few things are exactly as they appear on their face.

Regards,

Mike

MnMan,

I just skimmed over the analysis...whew! My head hurts....one thing I read that I haven't seen before...folks that do NOT believe in income redistribution are inclined to be LESS racist? That is certainly not the general meme. I believe it...because I believe racial set asides and preferences are racist. Again, thanx for the link & the write up.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

. Private charity has and can handle things.

Obviously they are not.

. I am inherently more qualified to determine who is worthy of my gift than some government bureaucrat.

Then you seem to be missing a lot.

Mike-1499840;

folks that do NOT believe in income redistribution are inclined to be LESS racist?

I thought you might find that interesting. Good topic for an article. I can't do it as my internet access and time is limited.

Mike-1499840 -

b. I am inherently more qualified to determine who is worthy of my gift than some government bureaucrat.

Your reply here, though stunning in its mentioning, is not surprising to me. Yes, the government puts stipulations on who qualifies for assistance and who does not, but those stipulations are not based on personal bias or judgment, but strictly based on financial need. Those who think they know who is "worthy" and who isn't of their "gift" are basing their judgments on biased opinions, nothing more.

It's human nature to be biased against certain folks. That bias is a hard thing to overcome. When you take that out of the equation, more of the needy get help. Also, I may be wrong here, and if I am, please excuse my assumptions.....do you give to charities and then claim those contributions on your taxes the following year?? I'm betting you do. When was the last time you gave a homeless man $5 for a hot meal, from your hand directly to his? No receipt....so no proof of giving. The only "reward" is knowing you did your part to help a man get nourishment to maybe live another day.

Again, another strawman. We do help the poor...privately. Those of you who feel we should do more, are welcome to give as much as you like. Please do not attempt however, to force me to do so via an unconstitutional and inefficient process.

To be clear, being against government funded charity isn't un Christian...it's just plain smart.

Regards,

Mike

While we are on the subject. Can someone please point to the enumerated power in the US Constitution that enables the government to forcibly take property from me and give it to someone else? I would also be interested in the moral part of that. I can find nothing in the constitution or the Bible that condones the govern,net forcibly taking from me and giving to a other.

Regards,

Mike

Is it not unChristian to cheer letting people die? I have a hard enough time with the attitude of I've got mine and I gave at church so screw you, but to actually cheer at the idea of allowing poor people to die is well beyond.

This taking and giving to another that you speak of - are you referring to taxes? What else is anyone taking from you? Really these claims of socialism are quite tiresome when our taxes are historically low.

The bible does say to pay your taxes and that the government is in power because God wants them to be. ( isn't that how Kings justified their behavior?)

It seems that many on the Christian spectrum want many Christian ideals forced upon the masses. Chastity, traditional male/female roles etc...They want their morals forced upon the nation but they don't want the parts of Christianity that might involve their pocket books involved, that is where the bible is slammed shut. Government suddenly has no role. They can tell people no sex, no birth control, no abortion, no equal pay, lots of nos, even no healthcare , no shelter, no food, no, no, no and yes that is why the GOP who aligned themselves with the moral majority is now the party of NO.

That quote is so true that it makes me feel defeated and sad

klm,

I said I gave to charity...I didn't specify where. But so we are clear on a few things. Conservatives give more to charity both in gross dollars and relative to their incomes than liberals do. I posted one link supporting this above. There are others.

If you and any others like you, are concerned that some folks don't have enough, then there is nothing to stop you from giving to them...either directly, or as a donation to the Federal government.

As for taxes. I pay mine. I pay a greater share of my income in taxes than 50 percent of the taxpaying population. My issue is, that the Federal government has no right to forcibly take from me (taxes) for the purpose of redistributing those dollars to someone else. I have asked this question several times. Where in the Constitution is there an enumerated power that allows the government to do this? No one has yet been able to answer this.

Regards,

Mike

One of my favorite quotes!

The sixteenth amendment. I find it interesting when people wrap themselves in the constitution but only when it suits them. The govt does have the power to tax you and everyone else in this country. Taxes are redistributed, that is how taxes work. We don't get to pick and choose how.

BS on the 50 percent argument people love to throw around. Everyone in this country pays taxes. I pay my taxes too, and probably just as much as you do.

Mike-1499840;

Article 1 sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There ya go. What I am hearing you say is that you don't like what some of that tax money is spent on.

I also feel that there is a disagreement or misunderstanding of what charity actually is. Unemployment Insurance isn't charity. Pell Grants, medicaid, TANF, food stamps etc. can all be viewed as an investment in the people by the People.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

MnMan,

You are correct...I have heartburn with what a lot of our taxes are spent on. I disagree with your premise that taxes, once collected may be spent on whatever the government wishes...My position is that they may only be spent on those things that are enumerated powers of the Federal government.

We may disagree on this next part...but all those things you specified...welfare, food stamps PELL grants etc are indeed an improper and unconstitutional use of Federal funds, as those programs are not enumerated in the constitution. Your final paragraph is the "general purpose" paragraph....All of the specific paragraphs/sections/articles that follow it are the actual, enumerated powers.

The Founders never envisioned the Federal government to have this pervasive of an impact in our daily lives.

Regards,

Mike

To be clear, being against government funded charity isn't un Christian...it's just plain smart.

I disagree. And there is nothing Christian about caring more about your wallet than the neediest among us.

lib50,

It's about caring about liberty and efficiency. I am more qualified to dispense my charity than the government. Did you even read what I wrote? I give plenty to charity on my own. I object to the government forcing me to give more using them as the money laundering operation. What is hard to understand about that? I'll spell it out...I am happy to voluntarily give to charity...and I do. Just because I don't believe it's constitutional for the Feds to be involved doesn't make me the Grinch.

Regards,

Mike

Mike-1499840;

I disagree with your premise that taxes, once collected may be spent on whatever the government wishes

That is not my premise at all! My premise is that Article 1 sec. 8 is an enumerated power. I believe the key words are: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes .... and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Taken in conjunction with the preamble (I know the preamble isn't an enumerated power) a very strong case is made that investing in people is a wholly Constitutional endeavor.

I too have heartburn with what a lot of our taxes are spent on.

MnMan,

You are saying "provide for the general welfare," is the enumerated power....got it. General welfare is like common defense....it involves a common currency and rules about it and other such things. General welfare involves the entirety of THESE United States. Not each individual in the population of the US. This is a common error made by citizens and even a few Supreme Court Justices on various occasions. There is nothing written by the founding fathers that would indicate the Federal government could be that involved in the lives of individuals. However, there is plenty of written material to the contrary.

BTW...Thank you for a cordial discussion. I appreciate being able to disagree w/o being called a disparaging name like "tea bagger." I also appreciate disagreement that is cogently presented...that makes me better...kinda like lifting weights.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

Do you take the tax write-off for your charitable donations?

Criminal

Well part of it, "gods word" is not law. I don't have to obey the christian god. If he does not like it, let him show up in person, instead of tossing "acts of god" about like a coward.

Mike-1499840;

Yes a cordial discussion is nice. I tend to get snarky at times but am making an effort.

There is nothing written by the founding fathers that would indicate the Federal government could be that involved in the lives of individuals.

What about Jefferson on public education ?

Jefferson felt so strongly about education that he, as a strict constitutional constructionist, submitted to congress an amendment to the constitution to legalize federal support for education in his State of the Union Address, December 2, 1806. "Education is here placed among the articles of public care. . . " (Honeywell, 1964, p. 63).

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. . . . An amendment to our constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people. (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 87)

A society is composed of individuals and thus the better those individuals do, the better society does. TANF etc. benefits both the individual and society as a whole. The devil is in the details.

Anti,

That statement is correct... in our system of government, the political and economic action is supposed to give the greatest opportunity, based on the talents you were born with. Opportunity doesn't mean that the Federal government is supposed to feed folks or house them or pay for college.

Right now, our system is encouraging generational welfare. We need to get the government out of the charity business. Make it "embarrassing to be on the dole." Make it embarrassing to have a child out of wedlock. This is a cultural thing Mr Atkinson fails to mention.

Regards,

Mike

make it embarassing to have a child out of wedlock...your brand of morals.

embarassing to be on the public doles...most people do not want to survive on what they recieve from the govt. if they can do better, make more they do. Have you ever HAD to take unemployment? OH yes it's tremendous amount of fun. Gosh lets go blow some of these big bucks. /s A good paycheck is far, far better.

Is it not embarassing for companies to recieve subsidies to do business - none of the oil companies seem embarassed at all, nor do any of the other businesses that have their hands out and send their lobbys to Washington to insure that money.

klm,

I absolutely agree with you on subsidies for companies...they should disappear....yesterday.

As the the moral part of out of wedlock....morals aren't the issue....go check the statistics...kids born out of wedlock are at a far higher risk of not completing high school, not going to college and ending up in jail than kids from a traditional, nuclear family. Them's just the numbers....don't shoot the messenger.

Same with unemployment...kicking people off it, forces them to take a job...any job...that in turn keeps them in the game. Again...the numbers don't lie.

And he's...I have been hungry before...but I went and found work. I refused to be a moocher and take money that I had not earned. It sucked, but I got through it.

Regards,

Mike

Mike, it sounds like it's all about money for you, just because you're born into wealth doesn't mean you work harder, or deserve the best schools money can buy.

Look at all the morons that have an Ivy League Education and are still dumb as a rock.

Regards,

John

Hey John,

Thanks for the post. No. It's not all about money for me. It's really all about personal liberty for me. I believe in charity and I give a lot to it. I also believe in very limited Federal government....Print the money, deliver the mail, declare the wars and make sure the railway gauge where Florida and Georgia meet is the same. In other words, the Feds need to stick with the enumerated powers in the constitution. States and local governments can deal with the rest as needed and decided by their citizens. The Federal government is not the end all be all for everything.

Before you get torn out of the frame, I do believe in some regulation to make sure criminals don't tear up the system...like Freddie & Fannie did w/help from Bawney Fwank. I certainly believe the government has no business bailing out private enterprises...like banks or car companies. There is probably some place for environmental regulation...I'm an outdoorsman and I like a nice clean forrest with nice air to breathe. But, there is a host of things the Federal government is involved in that are costing money, are run inefficiently and are unconstitutional to boot.

Look at all the morons that have an Ivy League Education and are still dumb as a rock.

The above quote was redundant! :-)

Regards,

Mike

Having had to rely on unemployment at one time I can tell you that is categorically wrong. Unemployment benefits are a fraction of a paycheck, certainly no picnic. They didn't discourage us looking for a job they helped keep us from standing in line for welfare. Kicking people off it helps them to the soup kitchen, especially when the so called "job creators" are too nervous to hire in our country but only where people will work for pennys a day.

A bit of education and birth control would help prevent most of those unplanned pregnancies. I agree a family is the best place for children. What are you going to do about the high divorce rate, those kids are being raised in one parent house holds as well.

You've got those generalizations down that have no merit.

...kids born out of wedlock are at a far higher risk of not completing high school, not going to college and ending up in jail than kids from a traditional, nuclear family. Them's just the numbers....don't shoot the messenger.

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Many of the factors which contribute to out of wedlock birth are also contributors to kids not completing high school, ending up in jail, etc. It is not the absence of a marriage license that causes problems.

klm,

Actually, my generalizations have proven over time to have merit. Over time...kids out of wedlock....lower standard of living. Kids growing up in a divorced family...tough time also. Liberals have worked long and hard to take the stigma out of fundamental societal mores, saying what you just did....Generalizations have no merit. Well those chickens are coming home to roost.

Before you get torn out of the frame....I am not advocating any law requiring people tom stay married or be married to have kids. Those are personal choices. But as we all know, whether we wish to admit it or not...choices have consequences. Abstinence is the surest form of birth control. Having sex is a choice. Having unprotected sex is another choice.

Regards,

Mike

Kate,

I think you have the chicken and egg confused. You are correct that there are a lot of other factors...but they are all wrapped around a central theme of, no consequences for bad actions. Again, back to my "embarrassment" comment. If folks were embarrassed to be pregnant out of wedlock or be on the dole, we would have far fewer of folks in those categories. And no, I cannot prove that except by anecdotal evidence gained by working in a middle school and high school for a few years and working on the street as a cop for a few years. Same issues keep cropping up...Baby Momma, Baby Daddy...grandma watching the kids and generational public assistance.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

Actually, my generalizations have proven over time to have merit. Over time...kids out of wedlock....lower standard of living. Kids growing up in a divorced family...tough time also. Liberals have worked long and hard to take the stigma out of fundamental societal mores, saying what you just did....Generalizations have no merit. Well those chickens are coming home to roost.

Before you get torn out of the frame....I am not advocating any law requiring people tom stay married or be married to have kids. Those are personal choices. But as we all know, whether we wish to admit it or not...choices have consequences. Abstinence is the surest form of birth control. Having sex is a choice. Having unprotected sex is another choice.

Mike,

How does abstinence help those who are molested and raped? Those situation sex is NOT a choice. They didn't make a choice but they still bear the consequences. Did you know that a found that majority of those in prison were abused as a child? If we can put a stop to child abuse, we would greatly reduce the numbers in prison.

Have a good day.

Mike explain why RED states in the bible belt have the highest divorce rates.

Explain why birth control which is 99% effective is not a viable option for the masses when the GOP/teaparty has its way, obviously it is about morality. They want to cut down on one parent families, teen pregnancy, abortion, birth control and good sex education is a great place to start. Just say no tends to have a high fail rate, again look at Red states who employ that methodology. I live in one.

I've been married for 25 years to one person, my only marriage. I am a liberal. I also happen to believe in God, consider myself a Christian but many out there would consider me a heathen purely because I don't ascribe to their particular biblical view. Rightwing Christians seem to have taken to the mistaken idea that they have some sort of IN with God and they truely get it, better than the rest of us. The thing is no one really knows. But if one is to be a literalist with the bible as many on the right are, they need to be a bit more consistant and do as Jesus asked and care about the less fortunate. A great place to start is not cheering the death of those less fortunate, the sick, the improvished, even the imprisoned.

Mike,

I also meant to have this quote from another one of your posts above:

As the the moral part of out of wedlock....morals aren't the issue....go check the statistics...kids born out of wedlock are at a far higher risk of not completing high school, not going to college and ending up in jail than kids from a traditional, nuclear family. Them's just the numbers....don't shoot the messenger.

I think child abuse is a much bigger issue that being married or not.

P.S. I am a Christian if it matters

Have a good day.

You are correct that there are a lot of other factors...but they are all wrapped around a central theme of, no consequences for bad actions.

I disagree. Single parents aren't necessarily a result of "bad actions" - and who are you to decide which actions are good and which are bad? Single parents come from four places:

1. Uncommitted relationships (hook-ups, casual sex, etc.)
2. Committed (but not married) relationships
3. Marriages which end (through death, divorce, other separation)
4. Women who choose to be single Moms and use a sperm donor

For the children in each set of circumstances, well-being and eventual outcomes are closely related to financial, emotional, and educational status of the adult(s) and social connectedness of all persons in the family home, far more than any other factor such as parental marital status.

• Physical and emotional abuse can happen in any family configuration
• Children whose parent/parent(s) is/are affluent do better than those whose parent/parent(s) is/are impoverished
• Children whose parent/parent(s) are educated do better than those whose parent/parent(s) are not educated
• Children whose parent/parent(s) have strong social ties, family and community support, do better than those whose parent/parent(s) are isolated
• Children whose parent/parent(s) are mentally healthy, free of substance abuse or behavioral problems do better than those whose parent/parent(s) are unhealthy or suffer addictions.

You can blame those you judge as "bad" based on your anecdotal evidence, but you're missing the big picture and ignoring reality when you do so.

klm,

First of all...congrats on 25 years married. That's a pretty big accomplishment in today's world. I mean that with all sincerity.

As to cheering the deaths of folks....closest I've ever come to that was Osama bin Laden. I don't believe most conservatives cheer death either.

I have no issue with available birth control. I am also unaware of any state that prevents the sale of such. I don't believe it should be Federally funded, but if states wish to do so, great. That is one of those "powers not enumerated herein are reserved to the states or the people" kinda things. Education, beginning at the right level is also a good thing. Whether that is a parental thing or a school thing...again, that is a decision best left to "the states or the people." along with those however, I believe that abstinence and shame have a place.

Again, I also believe as a Christian, that I should give to charity. I should help others less fortunate. I strongly resist however, being forced to by the Federal government...one it's not their purview and two...they do a crappy job at it.

Regards,

Mike

Kate,

The numbers show that the bad outcomes in your bullet list are more likely to occur in 1, 2, 4 and in half of item 3, thus proving my point. I am not the one to decide bad actions...society is. Society has decided for better or worse that the relationships you described are all "OK." When we did that, the bad outcomes in your bullet list went way up. Coincidence? are there other factors? Undoubtedly.

Regards,

Mike

Colonial,

No doubt child abuse is bad juju. If a marriage is contributing to that, then it's a no brainer that something has to be done. Sometimes the only/final option is to get away from the abuse.

Regards,

Mike

Colonial,

Just saw this...

How does abstinence help those who are molested and raped? Those situation sex is NOT a choice. They didn't make a choice but they still bear the consequences. Did you know that a found that majority of those in prison were abused as a child? If we can put a stop to child abuse, we would greatly reduce the numbers in prison.

Rape is definitely not a choice. I have two daughters...I have no idea how I would react of either of them became a victim of this heinous crime. I hope that I would be a strong shoulder for her to lean on and a source of comfort.

Child abuse definitely leads to issues later on in life. No argument there.

Regards,

Mike

.

The numbers show that the bad outcomes in your bullet list are more likely to occur in 1, 2, 4 and in half of item 3, thus proving my point.

The numbers do not. (And if you honestly belive they do, please provide a legitimate source.)

Perhaps you should have read the rest of it.

Jane,

If the "farmer" would voluntarily leave a "small portion of their fields" for the poor and needy, then we would not need the legislation and the enforcement - the welfare programs etc........BUT THEY DON'T - that is the fatal flaw of pure capitalism!!! It is selfish and cruel.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/t/story?id=2682730&page=1

See the link I posted above. Your premise is false. Conservatives actually give more than liberals to to charity. As the old saying goes, Liberals are very generous, with other people's money.

Regards,

Mike

As are trust fund babies who didn't earn the money they spend.

Make the inheritance tax 90% let these people earn a living for themselves.

Regards,

John

John,

As much as that might feel good...we all know a momma's boy or a daddy's boy somewhere....I really don't like the government getting into the "who deserves what" business.

Regards,

Mike

Raising the inheritance tax will not make these people better citizens. And where would we the people benefit from the government taxing someone yet again at a high rate even after they have died? Which is basically what that would do?

There is almost literally a church on every streetcorner in my town, yet the only available help for the poor, disabled, and seniors who need help with exorbitantly high summer utility bills is LEAP. Why is it that there's one food bank, run by the Salvation Army, but none run out of these private churches? Where are all the tithe monies going? Not to the poor. They're going to mission trips to Guatemala and to build the new "Family Life Center." Also to buying the pastor new suits and helping him pay for his Escalade. So for all the people who say they give to churches and think that they're going to be the gold standard for helping the poor, I must say, they're falling down on the job in a lot of ways. If they have programs to help the poor at large, and not just a select few of their parishioners they might want to advertise better so that people actually know they exist.

I'll be honest, most of the charity I "give" to involves volunteering my time at a free clinic or at a school and when I give money, it's typically right into the hand of someone I see struggling, but the government has the ability to offer more widespread help than private charities or churches seem to be able (or desire ) to. Not that they're not all important, but we've seen what happens when you rely on private charities and churches alone (Victorian era, anyone? Workhouses and child labor?)

And yes, I know the salvation army is a religious charity, but I don't understand why in a town full of churches, they're the only game in town as far as a food bank goes when there's such a need.

That is one one of the big problems with Church based charity. They leverage it into a recruiting method. Hosting things like comunity dinner and prayer night. Secular charity is needed. No strings attached. If you are going to feed me i shouldn't have to sit through an attempt at conversion every night just to get my bowl of soup. If it was truely charity they would give to all without pressuring their ideals. This is not the dark ages, the church is not the center of our society. In fact it is being pushed closer and closer to the fringe. Not by the actions of the nonbelievers towards the church, but by the actions of the church towards nonbelievers.

That is one one of the big problems with Church based charity. They leverage it into a recruiting method.

IF what you say is true, then all of these churches that SU talks about would be out there "recruiting" in the community.

It is my bet that they are helping, but that SU has never been near one to know what they do.

It is my bet that they are helping, but that SU has never been near one to know what they do.

WoW is that nasty!

Cowboy, now you are the one twisting the Bible to meet your needs. Sure, hell awaits those that don't choose Christ. That does not negate the fact that one still chooses. There is no compulsion. Otherwise, faith would be empty. If you are going to argue otherwise, then you are not spreading the gospel, but are in fact the enemy that is sowing the tare.

No, I do not believe that Jesus was under compulsion. If you believe what the Bible says, Cowboy, then you would believe that he freely offered himself.

Hebrews 7:27; Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Hebrews 9:14; How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God,

2 Timothy 3:16; All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

Scripture says he offered himself. I beleive he offered himself.

Lastly.

2 Corinthians 9:7; Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

This seems abundantly obvious, and should go without saying. Giving is not synonymous with compulsory payment. God's command is to give cheerfully, without compulsion.

Thanks for the reference to Hosea, or Mathew, but it cannot be relied on here. One can pay taxes with a cold heart, devoid of love or mercy. The gift or offering, made without compulsion is what God, (in Hosea) and Jesus, (in Mathew) are talking about. And again, the true teaching, as cited above, is to give without compulsion. Therefore, compulsory payment of taxes is not, whether or not cheerfully paid, the measure of a righteous heart.

Rex,

When He said, God loves a cheerful giver, He was speaking of that that made offerings to God. Jesus said, " Render unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's....He didn't say "render unto Caesar cheerfully.

Cowbow,

Man you are grabbing for straws now. Nowhere in any one of my posts have I promoted the idea that he did not give freely. That is exactly what I am saying. You, on the other hand, have promoted that his crucifiction was compulsory. That he did not want to do it, but had to. Paint it how you like, it is a gift. Find a passage that states otherwise.

Your premise is that giving to the poor through payment of taxes is biblical. I have reproduced scripture showing otherwise that is yet to be contradicted. Mandatory payment of taxes is not giving, no matter how you phrase it. Again, address the passage you asked for and that I produced. I'd quite like to see your breakdown of the language.

It almost makes light of what He went through to say he did not feel compelled

No, it makes light of what he did to say he was compelled in the context you originally asserted. Compelled perhaps only by his love for us, not by some overriding fear of authority. There is a marked difference. Just as in your example. You are not compelled by anyone to provide for your wife, you are compelled by your love for her.

since I want that for her I willingly go to work to provide.

Good man. And if your love fades, the law allows you to divorce her and stop the provision. If your love of the US fades, I doubt so much the government would grant you similar liberties of skipping your mandatory tax payments.

I haven't tried to justify not paying taxes to help others any way I please. I am simply calling you to task. You have attempted to make the payment of taxes for the benefit of others biblical without reference. I have referenced a passage that expressly contradicts your position. Giving without mandate is Biblical.

Rescue,

With all due respect, I don't see how that alters anything I've said. Maybe you can elaborate.

You don't think it was compulsory for Him to die for us.

No, it was not compulsory for Jesus to die for us.

The Old Testament basically laid out for us in the law, the life of Jesus. Jesus was the perfect servant.

From Exodus 21

¹Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them.

²If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

³If hecome in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.

⁴If his mastergive him a wife and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go outby himself.

⁵But if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

⁶then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post;

and his master shallbore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Jesus could have simply been raptured back to heaven after his term of service to God, but he chose to be Married to the church, being nailed to a post for our sake. Why do you think that in the Book of Revelations it talks about the Marriage supper of the lamb?

Jesus suffered death willingly because, as it is written in the parable of the pearl of great price, he gave it all so that he could have us, the children of faith. He paid the price to save the entire world, so he could have the ones chosen by God, from the foundation of the universe.

So, no, you twist scripture like playing with a snake.

Cowboy:

I am absolutely on track. I have reproduced an actual passage of the Bible:

2 Corinthians 9:7; Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Paying taxes and calling it "giving to the poor" is exactly what is being talked about here. God does not consider that giving. That is the topic of your seed. That is the topic of my posts. If you are derailed by the truth, then I suggest you attempt some of it yourself.

You have made several claims here that mandatory payment of taxes is a substitution for direct giving. By all means, if you have a passage that says as much, reproduce it. Until such time, I am abiding by the commands of Jesus when he instructed me to not give out of compulsion.

Again, next tax season, I urge you to decide in your heart that you should give less than what uncle sam is demanding. Maybe then you will understand the difference in giving and paying.

not reluctantly or under compulsion

If we vote to give the poor more money through taxes, then we are not giving reluctantly or under compulsion. What you are failing to realize is WE are the government. We determine how much money we want to put into the pot and where we want it to go. If you are reluctant to pay your taxes you are welcome to leave.

Concerned,

Feel free to reproduce any portion of any one of my posts where I state that I will not pay my taxes.

The article suggests that giving through the payment of taxes is Biblical. This assertion is made without a single reference to a passage on that subject. I have supplied a passage, at the author's request, refuting the assertion.

What you are failing to realize is that the taxes I pay go to things like, the Iraqi war, a Russian steal company (saw that this morning on HLN), Solyndra, GM, Banks, Lobbyist, Pakistan (to fund terrorists I suppose?), John Murtha's nephew in no bid contracts, 70 K for Obama's book...

I have a serious problem with a good portion of what my tax dollars go to. To assert that I am displaying a non-Christian behavior by showing an oposition to increased taxes so that the funding of garbage like this can continue is asinine. Liberals parade the sick, elderly, homeless, and needy around like pawns. Not to help them, but so they can get support for more taxes to fund more pet projects. Such is the very reason taxes cannot substitute for charitable giving.

Most liberals are opposed to all of things you complained about as well. Personally i agree that my taxes should not go to Oil companies, Wars, Special interests. But i am perfectly happy with the amount of my taxes that go to feeding the poor and taking care of the sick. If we got rid of all the other stuff we could do even more to improve our society. You missed the main point. That is anything that your taxes go to cannot be considerd to be given "reluctantly or under compulsion" if the money you pay in taxes is given reluctantly or only because of compulsion i suggested the solution of go somewhere where you won't have to give them.

Liberals spend half thier time lambasting Christians as morons, idiots, racists, and fools, ...

Not all liberals; probably not even most liberals. I certainly don't. I might consider blind faith silly, but I don't consider anyone a moron, idiot or fool for believing something I do not. I rather like that our culture is diverse and we're all free to believe or not believe as we wish. I only tend to get pissy when someone want to make their beliefs the basis for civil law.

Dear 1492:

Believe it or not, some Christians are liberals. This Christian is as I just said, a democratic socialist.

Some Christians are very capable of belying their moronic, idiotic, racist and foolish mindset quite apart from any external help, whether it come from unbelievers or even other Christians for that matter.

I regularly identify myself as a Christian. Seldom, if ever, am I taken to task for that. Many unbelievers seem genuinely grateful to meet believers with some measure of competence in learning, and who are able to derive from Christ’s life, death and resurrection, a levelheaded and socially redemptive perspective to issues that matter in our day. Believe it or not, people are relieved to meet such Christians. So I suspect that the problem you identify is not with Christian faith as it is with the apparent moronic idiocy, racist and calculatedly foolish mindset of some believers.

For years and years and years, Christians promoted as gospel truth the lie that the Federal Communications Commission was going to force all Christian broadcasting off the air. The infamous ‘Madaline Madalyn Murray O'Hare petitions were circulated and signed by Christians across the continent. This was urban legend.

A few years ago, many Christians were sure that Rowling’s ‘Harry Potter’ series was a conspiracy to promote public blasphemy at best, if not outright Satanism. Now it is as if the Oxford Christian Writers club – CS Lewis, JRR Tolkein and others have pushed out a chair for her to join them. Theologians are publishing papers in respected theological journals on Rowling’s work, asking whether and to what extent her work successfully expounds Christian faith. Christians wrote off Rowling never knowing that she is a professing member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

Bush decides that it is God’s will to invade Iraq. So everyone gets on the God bandwagon. Sarah Palin tells us that God told her to build an Alaska pipeline. Again, rank-and-file churchgoers get onboard. Pat Buchannan issues a fatwa on Hugo Chavez’ head, and Yahweh bless them –Christians get on the campaign trail again! The list is simply endless. It truly is.

There are intelligent, erudite Christians who both can and want to make a difference on the big issues in public life. But do you know – their frustration is that they must spend so much time fending off the stupidity of stupid Christians. Christians need to know that sometimes, the flak they take isn’t precipitated by their faith but by their own, moronic, idiotic, racist and unconquerably stupid behavior.

As an aside, did you know that Obama is a baptized Muslim infidel who adheres to both Marxism and Fascism?

Dear Lord:

Deliver us from the evil one;
but if not, in your endless mercies,
please, please, please, PLEASE
save us from our friends.

@bker.....we lambaste the christians and I can only speak for myself here, I have the utmost respect for the truly REAL Christians I have encountered. I can count their number on my fingers and have fingers left over. most are the wanna be kind.VERY FEW really practice what Jesus preached!

I've struggled with religion during my adult life, mostly because of the followers of Christianity, and what I've seen of their fruits. It made me question the beliefs that I had when I was a child. I saw people who were obsessed with finding "sin" in even the most innocent things. People who judged one another right in church based on the quality of their clothes or the style of their hair, or how much they threw in the collection plate.

One day, after much agnosticism, I did what people say you should never do. I said "God, if you make "x" happen, I will never disavow you again." That afternoon, against all odds, "x" happened. I've kept my end of the bargain ever since, but I know that I have to love God and believe in my own way. I prefer to think that God would like to see us be good to each other. Even if you believe that this is all there is, why not sew harmony and ease suffering while you're here? I choose to do this by donating to local charities that I am SURE give people the help they need and sometimes just through my own random acts of kindness. I don't really spend a lot of time worrying about who "deserves" what. I just give. I enjoy it. Sometimes I even pay for the person's burger behind me at the fast food place. Or pay library fees for someone, or give a mother with 3 kids at the thrift shop 100 bucks. Once I saw a young woman with a baby begging them not to turn off her lights at the utility company. I paid the bill. If you look, there are many, many ways to help, and why wouldn't we take advantage of as many ways to do it as we have available to us? Privately, individually AND governmentally.

Village,

Although I agree with almost everything you post,

Christagelical Evanjihadists

is a CoH violation called troll bowling. There are evangelical Christians who are social moderates and liberals as much as that seems strange to the far right, and you can't paint all of us with the same brush.

Dear Rescue Dog:

Thank you for pointing out this matter. In my opinion, there are those for whom the admittedly sarcastic moniker is duly applicable; however I have applied this bit of literary creativity with a brush broader than a keenly idiotic mind should allow.

May I say also that I am grateful that this remark and your reply has been allowed to stand. That way, I can offer a full and free apology for the unfortunate remark. This, I hereby do.

To the Newsvine Community, my apology for CoH violation.

I regard myself duly chastised.

Pressed to the wall, I could name myself an evangelical, although I do not hold my evangelicalism in the same was that many evangelicals do. Partly, it is precisely because of my affection for a more theologically conservative position (although admittedly radical in some respects) that I tend to be overly critical of it. This I do because it is my opinion that the best thing we can do to redress the abuses we often perpetuate is to be our own, worst critics.

Blessings, Rescue Dog!

Thank you Village, I too am glad that they were allowed to stand.

(((((Village)))))

Canj I hear an AMEN!

If the churches were able to do the job then none of this would exist, but it does and it's all around us, and while we can find the money to subsidize oil, spend trillions on wars, and several million to fund the NASCAR races, we want to cut food stamps, vaccinations for children who can't afford them, and turn our backs on the sick. This country will be judged, but not for it's sexual sin but for the worship at the altar of mammon.

Amen.

There are also many christian conservatives that do the same thing. Just because we think we are a better judge of who receives our help than the government, does not mean that Christians are not doing as Christ would.

The government will tell me my tax dollars will go to help the poor, when it actually goes to some lobbyist. I cannot trust the government to do the right thing, not just one party or the other, both sides of the aisle are corrupt.

I have never once deducted any of my volunteer work or charitable giving, and I'm a lefty that does give!

Some people give as much as they can, in money, time, or service. Others do not. Remember the words of Jesus from Mark 12:42-44:

42 And there came a certain a poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

If I give my grocery money for the week, with no backup, and my neighbor gives half of his disposable income for the week - which happens to be about 4x the value of my grocery money, which of us gave more? Does it matter or does it just matter that needs are met and suffering is stopped?

Newwtricks,

To have the government tax you, in the name of charity, removes the true act of charity from the individual

The government doesn't tax in the name of charity, and these people aren't "charity cases",

I don't want my taxes to go to the trilllions of dollars to the military industrial complex, I don't want my taxes going to give subsidies to the oil companies, I don't want my taxes to go to fund NASCAR races, the Bible doesn't say anything about any of those, it does say to feed the hungry, clothes the naked, give shelter and visit prisons, and it says to pay taxes.

Why are Christians on the right fine with all those things but bristle at the thought of taking care of the poor. I see it as pure hypocrisy.

gramps

You keep going in new directions. Can you please stay on topic? It has been stated here, with references from the Bible, that it is harder for a rich man to enter into the gates of Heaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. I was asking for anyone to validate what constitutes a rich man. No one answered. Even you, one who professes to know just what the Bible is referring to, took the opportunity to spin and deflect from the simple question.

To force a person to give what they have in the name of a government looking after it's own is no longer charity. Especially with the current form of government that we have. It has been proven time and time again, from both sides of the aisle, that if you are connected in Washington, you get "taken care of". Why would anyone want to contribute to that system? When I have a choice between giving to a local church, who sponsors activities for those in my area, and I can see direct results of the choices made with the money, or services I provide, it means more, and it is more valuable to me and my eternal soul, than for a portion of my income to be taken away, in the form of withholdings on my paycheck, to be used as some Congressman sees fit. When Jesus said render unto Caesar, what is Caesars's, I took that to mean pay your taxes, but keep your charity towards God and his people separate. You seem to want to blur those lines. That is fine for you. For me, I would rather do it my way.

And finally, to want to keep my money so that I can do with it as I see fit, is not putting money and wealth above God. Only a simpleton could come away with that logic. Perhaps God is asking you to reconsider whether you are correct in your accusations of Conservatives. What makes you so right, that you accuse an entire group of people with not wanting to take care of the poor? How much information do you actually possess, other than what you are fed from the media, to make that determination? Where do you get the gall to accuse anyone of not being generous enough? Who made you that judge?

Great post Newwtricks!

Newwtricks,

I want to say that I'm personally offended by your attacks on Cowboygrampa. He is not Gramps, and of anyone on Newvine who is respected for his beliefs in the saving grace of Jesus Christ it's him. Atheists and agnostics will rail against Christians, but say that Cowboy expresses his faith in a way that doesn't offend. He doesn't back down, he doesn't pussy foot around, he shares the gospel with an acknowledgment that he is nothing except for Christ. With your hostility I'm not so sure you would draw anyone to Christ.

Having said that, I think he's correct to hold those who profess Christianity and don't follow what Jesus taught, to hold their feet to the fire. I wonder how many who rail against him, don't do so because of their own personal conviction.

When you can drive around in your Mercedes and feel that you have it because "God has blessed you" while you ignore those who are suffering, then I think, like the Levites who passed the man on the road, it is wrong.

Cowboy

At least you agree with me, you just don't know it. I too, don't want the government spending my money in ways I don't like. That is why I detest the thought of the government telling me to pay more taxes so that they can "provide" for everyone else. If you think that my comment was judging you, then you might want to reconsider your article that you submitted. What makes either one of them any different? You are questioning an entire group of people about what they do, and how they act. I questioned you in a similar manner. You argue that I have no right to judge you. I then ask what makes you qualified to judge them, and you reply by telling me I am not worthy to judge you. And yet, you still can't connect the dots. I can't paint it any simpler than that.

I need to ask you a serious question regarding the Bible. What parts have you torn out? What pages have you read, and decided that they just don't apply to you or your world? Do you only follow the New Testament? Or does the Old Testament hold equal value?

If you think that a woman caught committing adultery should not be stoned to death, then you have torn that section of the Bible out. Get my point? And for all of the adultery committed in this country, it appears that you have neglected to write articles about the lack of stoning that takes place. I would think that a person of your high moral background, one who spends much time making sure that the NV community knows just how bad Conservatives are, would also show the same zeal towards this atrocity too.

The sad truth is that you are deluded into believing that all Conservatives are bad, and all liberals are good. Nothing could be further from the truth. These Conservatives are not just the rich people. They are average, everyday people. They work, sweat, cry, laugh, and more often than liberals, they take care of their own. They don't wait for a government program to come along to help the neighbor. They stop in and do it themselves, after working 12 hours. They go to church. They tithe. They donate time to community projects. They vote. They get sick. They die. Just like liberals. It isn't Conservatives who have screwed things up. It is government in general. Too many politicians are trying to get elected for all the wrong reasons. And people like you are aiding them. By keeping your eyes closed tot he reality of the situation in America, you are helping to perpetuate the problem. It isn't a liberal or a Conservative problem. It is a government problem.

I detest the thought of the government telling me to pay more taxes so that they can "provide" for everyone else.

The companies that "outsourced" jobs and pay slave wages that cause people to have to rely on public assistance should be footing the bill. Instead, they are raking in records profits at taxpayer expense. It is greed at the corporate level that created this issue....not the workers.

If you are a corporation that is responsible for this mess then you should be paying for it... period.

If you think that a woman caught committing adultery should not be stoned to death, then you have torn that section of the Bible.

Since the topic is Jesus' commands .... show where Jesus commanded anyone to harm anyone else for any reason. Otherwise, this is off topic and a derail.

It isn't Conservatives who have screwed things up. It is government in general.

Conservatives in the government are pro-corporations and anti people. The Conservatives doing it and calling themselves "Christians" are hypocrites....and are the topic of this article.

If the shoe fits .........

Mocow,

The companies that outsourced jobs also have set up shop to sell thier products in other countries. If China sets up shop in the US, to sell goods and services to the US, do we not want them to use US labor when possible? Do you think that other countries would also want the same thing? Where is it written that corporations have to use US labor? If it is a law, then we need to throw these CEO's in jail. If it is not a law, then they are doing what is best for the corporation. Which is exactly what they are supposed to do. As a shareholder in XYZ company, if you learn that the CEO decided to use US union labor to make solar panels, instead of Outsourcing to Mexico or China at 1/5th the costs, and the company went bankrupt, and you lost all of your investments, your retirement, everything, would you still be saying, "At least they used over-priced Union US labor"? No, you would want someone's head on a platter. You would hire a lawyer and go after them for malfeasance. You would scream that this corporation ran themselves into the ground, and as a result, you lost your entire investment.

Since the topic was Jesus' commands, let's look at that a little, shall we? Is Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit one? Or are they three different entities? If they are one, as is taught in the Bible, then Jesus' commands are also God's commands, and that would mean that the Old Tesatament is as relevant to Jesus' commands as the New Testament. Which is the point of my question to Cowboy.

And finally, if you truly feel that Democrats have not made sweetheart laws and placed corporations above people, you are also deluded. Why is it, that not once, in all of the time that the federal government was controlled by Democrats, did they not address these issues? Try to understand that the whole Us vs. Them that is being thrust on everyone is a ruse. As long as people like you and Cowboy have an enemy, you won't look at the real culprit; Washington.

You honestly can't believe that all Conservatives are bad and all liberals are good, can you?

You honestly can't believe that all Conservatives are bad and all liberals are good, can you?

I honestly believe a crook is a crook, a liar is a liar and a thief is a thief.

What burns me up is when they lie, cheat and steal and claim to be "Christians" doing God's work.

Is Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit one? Or are they three different entities?

There is debate on that topic, and it depends on the brand of Christianity observed.

It adds to the confusion because Jesus told people to turn the other cheek and God told them stone people to death for various "offenses. Either God changed the rules or Jesus opposed God's rules. Take your pick. Most people seem to. However, anyone claiming to be a Christian should probably being following Christ's commands since they seem to be depending on Him for their eternal salvation.

Personally, I don't think that Jesus would approve of enriching oneself by using crooked companies using slave labor since that is not "loving" your neighbor by any stretch of the imagination..... or maybe I am just not as good as justifying exploiting others for personal gain as some people are.

As a non-Christian, I find degrading others for financial gain despicable, and cannot understand why anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ can defend such actions unless they are a complete hypocrite or imbecile.

If I was poor and without food, I would want to be Cowboy Grandpa's neighbor, because I can almost guarantee that he would help me without question or conditions...unlike many of the churches that you cite as so generous.

He would help me knowing that I am an atheist - all he would need to know is that I am a human being in need.

You won't get too much support for your Cowboy bashing here on NV.

You won't get too much support for your Cowboy bashing here on NV.

Amen...I'm honored that I can call him my friend.

Well, based upon the replies, at least I know some of you tried to read my comment. Too bad your comprehension skills could not allow you to answer the question I asked. I can understand the sticking up for gramps, it is a nice way to avoid the truly obvious.

Thanks anyway, I really didn't expect anyone to honestly answer that question. It would mean the whole argument of accusing only Conservatives as not caring for the poor would go bye bye.

NWT you are talking people and emotions, not Party and the Policy, Democrat is the Party of the Working class of people.

Stop bashing conservatives. I think we are more like Christ than most of you guys, in my opinion.

No you aren't. You have aligned yourself with a political party and have supported media companies that have knowingly lied about their content. You back politicians who you will defend at any cost. You constantly violate the 9'th commandment to protect your party and have put your party above God. You cannot have two masters. You cannot blindly support a political party and God. The two are mutually exclusive.

There are two types of Christians, those who prove they are Christians by their actions and those who claim they are Christians. The latter are simply liars who use the cloak of Christ to cover the blood on their hands and evil in their souls. Yet you support them. When they are proven to be evil, you accept their transparent lie and you again defend them at all cost. Even if that cost is the truth. If your political adversary even commits 1/2 the sin you crucify him.

Political parties are the masters of deception and conservatives have taken that art to a new level. The deceiver is talked about in the bible, but we don't call him God. He too would say he was a Christian, he too would say he was a believer in Christ and he too would claim to know the mind of God.

The "genuine believers" will spend eternity with Him.

You will know the genuine believers by their actions, not by their words. So you really need to take a genuine look in the mirror to see if you think God really sees Christ in you, or the other Guy,

I know a few liberals, and I think they are all pretty damn selfish people, except for one friend who is about 92 right now

Then you have very selective sight my friend.

It always amazes me how effortlessly that bit of scripture is misinterpreted and misused.

How is it misinterpreted? Some in the presence of Christ and the woman were mad because she anointed Christ with expensive oil that they felt should have been sold to feed the poor. Christ said that there would always be poor people and they could help them whenever they wanted to, but that Christ would not always physically be there with them, and the woman had done right by honoring him.

When I donate to my churches clothes closet and the food pantry, I am helping the poor, and when I pay my tithe to the church, I am honoring Christ.

As you presented it, the focus was on "the poor will always be with us" rather than the true meaning, that this woman's choice was appropriate in the given situation.

I don't believe "the poor will always be with us" means we should not do what we can; in fact, I'd argue that Jesus said we should not only do what we can, we should do all that we can. For example,

Matthew 19:21:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Luke 14:12-14:

He said also to the man who had invited him, "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. ¹³ But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, ¹⁴ and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

I agree with the fact that we should do what we can do. However, who should decide what each individual should do. I say the individual. Also, how do you know how much the wealthy give to charity? Just because the amount given is not broadcast or submitted to the web for every liberal who complains about the wealthy to see, does not mean that money is not donated. Unless you have personal knowledge of the bank account for every rich person in America, you have no right to pass judgement on where you think they spend their money.

However, who should decide what each individual should do. I say the individual. Also, how do you know how much the wealthy give to charity?

I think you're missing the point - badly. It isn't about who gives what, who gives more or less, who is wealthy or not. It's about the reality that there is tremendous need that is not being met, right now, today, here. One of the roles of our government is to keep people from living and starving in the streets because they don't have money. WE are the government, WE decide that we will not let our neighbor suffer. The details are just details - we either believe in taking care of our fellow human or we do not.

and you can help them any time you want

What part of that is not understandable? He meant you can help or don't have to. He, Jesus, will not be with us as mortal man soon, so pay attention to what he is saying.

Hopefully they will read the whole story and wake up. This false political christian thing is really discouraging.