It's not 'Class Warfare,' it's Christianity

You just have to love the disingenuousness of the regressive left. It is amazing, isn't it, how the author of that opinion manages to dance around the central component of the passage he cites; that it was a voluntary action that they chose for themselves instead of a mandated action using the force of government to achieve. That would be like Warren Buffet choosing to give his money to his church for the benefit of others. Is Statism now a religion as well? It would appear to be so, which brings up the oft heard question, what of the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution?

I have to agree with the argument that Christianity is about voluntarily giving up one's wealth to help others. It's a curious fact, that the more money a person has the less likely they are to contribute towards the less fortunate among us.

http://www.givingforum.org/s_forum/doc. ... 0&DID=9694

Giving occurs across a wide economic spectrum. Eighty-nine percent of American households give philanthropically. The average gift is $1,620 annually. People with less wealth have traditionally given more of their incomes, proportionately, to charity. In the year 2000, for example, the U.S. Census reported that households with incomes between $20,000 and $29,000 contributed 3.9 percent of their income (as measured in cash and in-kind contributions) to charity, as compared to an average of 2.7 percent for households with incomes of more than $100,000.

The closer to the bone you live, the more likely you are to share what you've got - possibly because faith alone has gotten you through tough situations, where money couldn't be had to buy the solution to your problem. Wealthy people's attitudes toward prosperity propelled them to where they are in the first place - and that mindset makes it easy for them to not even recognize the poor among us. Ironically, any secular characters' demand that the wealthy give to the poor simply because the wealthy are Christian has no basis in faith either - it's senseless, barely masking the socialist whining.

Christian action comes from the heart - and money tends to harden that. So any government attempt to use Christian theology as a way for wealthy people to pony up more of their income just adds insult to injury for the faithful among us. Bad enough that so many American Christians have strayed from Christ's teachings; do we need the government to employ religious guilt as an excuse to rob the populace even more?

When the whole of the tax structure is premised upon taxing to provide the funds for the public charity programs, it is pretty easy to understand folks taking the attitude that this is what they pay their taxes for - that they "gave at the government" so to speak. It is hard to understand why the chief executive of the government, a Christian himself, wouldn't set an example and give the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he "didn't need" to private charity organizations instead of advocating that the government confiscate a larger share from everyone to fund the federal efforts to become the national clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of the nation's charity efforts.

It is YOUR money they want. The government collects money to protect and further their way of life, not help anyone else.

swampfish wrote: I have to agree with the argument that Christianity is about voluntarily giving up one's wealth to help others. It's a curious fact, that the more money a person has the less likely they are to contribute towards the less fortunate among us.

http://www.givingforum.org/s_forum/doc. ... 0&DID=9694

Giving occurs across a wide economic spectrum. Eighty-nine percent of American households give philanthropically. The average gift is $1,620 annually. People with less wealth have traditionally given more of their incomes, proportionately, to charity. In the year 2000, for example, the U.S. Census reported that households with incomes between $20,000 and $29,000 contributed 3.9 percent of their income (as measured in cash and in-kind contributions) to charity, as compared to an average of 2.7 percent for households with incomes of more than $100,000.

The closer to the bone you live, the more likely you are to share what you've got - possibly because faith alone has gotten you through tough situations, where money couldn't be had to buy the solution to your problem. Wealthy people's attitudes toward prosperity propelled them to where they are in the first place - and that mindset makes it easy for them to not even recognize the poor among us. Ironically, any secular characters' demand that the wealthy give to the poor simply because the wealthy are Christian has no basis in faith either - it's senseless, barely masking the socialist whining.

Christian action comes from the heart - and money tends to harden that. So any government attempt to use Christian theology as a way for wealthy people to pony up more of their income just adds insult to injury for the faithful among us. Bad enough that so many American Christians have strayed from Christ's teachings; do we need the government to employ religious guilt as an excuse to rob the populace even more?

And like PS mentions, Christian people in low tax/low income states like Alabama give much more of their income percentage wise to charity than non-religious people in high tax/high income states like Massachusets. "I gave at the office" way of thinking?

Then again since those rich people are taxed at a much higher rate than the poor, picking a career as a high priced corporate lawyer with a high tax rate benefits the poor more than becoming a social worker who pays little or no taxes.

Jesus was the ultimate commie. Imagine if he were alive today and preaching what he preached. The right would tear him apart. They'd crucify him.

What part of voluntary do you not understand Whine-O?

And you are the ULTIMATE IDIOT! You are bordering on Hate Speech.

How many of us truly believe that if called before Jesus he would not rebuke us?

And Whine-O still edits his posts to appear less foolish. Its a waste of time Whine-O.