Protestant Republicans and Poverty

[bri89]

I was raised non-denominational protestant. I’ve lived in a largely middle-class protestant Republican area. I have always been disappointed by the community’s indifference to poverty considering there is so much of it concentrated in the downtown area. Homeless people are gently deported by policemen whenever they are found within close range of the more affluent areas, even if they are just rummaging through dumpsters. There is so much homelessness downtown! City government officials are mostly protestant Republicans who don’t seem to consider poverty a moral issue. They speak of faith and protecting family values but really demonstrate only a narrow interest confined to their own small affluent community. My own mother is a “Christian” but has mostly damning views of the homeless . This is not only true in my city but seems to be part of protestant republican views nationwide. Sorry if I’m stereotyping a little. The religious leaders most ardently committed to ending homelessness and providing housing in my city are mostly Catholic. They have done so much. Bless them because nobody else cares.

 

[Rascalking]

Well, here is a dirty little secret from this republican who has given to a large amount of charities, gets his hands dirty by volunteering, etc.

You need to have money in order to give it away. You gain money by working, saving, and doing things like that. Because I work very hard, I’m able to give money to different charities that I freely and happily support. If I sat on my butt all day and did nothing, I wouldn’t have money to give to people.

People should help the poor and not worry about the motive. The motive of why people help is irrlevant. I don’t care if you help to feel better about yourself, get your name out in public, or whatever. Just help.

Do some people not care about the poor? Of course they don’t. You can’t steroptype them though-it’s both protestants and catholics, jews and gentiles, you name it. There are jerks in all religions. Sometimes, even democrats don’t care about the poor! Imagine that!

 

[Barbkw]

I’m an Independent with a strong tilt toward the Republican ticket. I own a business, and I am responsible for feeding and providing health insurance for my employees and their families. I also donate to food programs outside of the U.S.

I also pay taxes, lots of taxes - city, state, and federal for the support of programs within the U.S. to help people who are in poverty.

In the mail yesterday, I received a “Scorecard of Catholics in Congress”.

You might want to do a comparitive search on the issue of abortion and stemcells at:

catholicadvocate.com/?page_id=10

 

[bri89]

I’m sorry to both of you. My post was unintentionally offensive. This is what I’ve observed in my own community.

 

[Rascalking]

I’m sorry to both of you. My post was unintentionally offensive. This is what I’ve observed in my own community.

I apologize as well if I came across as a jerk. It’s just something I observe all the time, in particular by many Catholics. The attitude of “Republicans don’t care about the poor!”

Well, we, or should I say many of the ones that I know-care deeply about the poor.

My apologies as well.

 

[ERose]

I apologize as well if I came across as a jerk. It’s just something I observe all the time, in particular by many Catholics. The attitude of “Republicans don’t care about the poor!”

Well, we, or should I say many of the ones that I know-care deeply about the poor.

My apologies as well.

I have to be a defender of Protestants in my area but they are active in taking care of the poor here in Shreveport, LA. Protestants are the far majority in Shreveport especially Baptists and Methodist. We Catholics and Protestants for the most part work hand in hand with the poor in supporting food banks, etc.

One thing i have always noticed is that there are more homeless people to be found in locations that are predominately liberal or Democrat. I wonder why that is?

 

[Rascalking]

I have to be a defender of Protestants in my area but they are active in taking care of the poor here in Shreveport, LA. Protestants are the far majority in Shreveport especially Baptists and Methodist. We Catholics and Protestants for the most part work hand in hand with the poor in supporting food banks, etc.

One thing i have always noticed is that there are more homeless people to be found in locations that are predominately liberal or Democrat. I wonder why that is?

It’s different up here in New England, the land of “Not in my backyard liberalism”. There are homeless shelters all over the place, but not in the democratic leaning areas.

 

[Barbkw]

Bri89,

Thanks for reading & the apology.

 

[wxboss]

Well, here is a dirty little secret from this republican who has given to a large amount of charities, gets his hands dirty by volunteering, etc.

You need to have money in order to give it away. You gain money by working, saving, and doing things like that. Because I work very hard, I’m able to give money to different charities that I freely and happily support. If I sat on my butt all day and did nothing, I wouldn’t have money to give to people.

People should help the poor and not worry about the motive. The motive of why people help is irrlevant. I don’t care if you help to feel better about yourself, get your name out in public, or whatever. Just help.

Do some people not care about the poor? Of course they don’t. You can’t steroptype them though-it’s both protestants and catholics, jews and gentiles, you name it. There are jerks in all religions. Sometimes, even democrats don’t care about the poor! Imagine that!

I understand where you’re coming from, but the issue of the poor and other marginalized people in society transcends political affiliation and social strata.

We live in a world where human beings are objectified - they’re treated as objects. If a certain person or group of persons does not produce or benefit society in any significant way, they are marginalized by society and looked at as somebody not really worthy of any human kindness or charity.

For instance, being made aware of a couple’s pregnancy, the couple may deliberate between themselves and see the child (or tissue mass as others may refer to this emerging life) as a hindrance to plans they’ve already made for themselves. Maybe the child will be viewed as a financial burden which would rob them of certain other things they are working for in their lives. Maybe he/she will be viewed as a hindrance to their careers and professional aspirations. After all, it will be years before such a creature will be able to make itself “useful”. So the child is aborted and the problem is “solved.”

The aged and dying relative who has been relegated to a hospital bed and shows no signs of improvement ought to be “released” from their condition since the chance of their recovery is small. Besides, it will save a lot of money in medical costs which can be put to more useful (or selfish) purposes.

The poor who live under overpasses and in back alleys who can make no real contribution to society are viewed oftentimes and undue burdens on society. They can’t contribute anything, so they deserve nothing in return. It all boils down to perceived worth of a human being and their dignity.

The Catholic Church has always held that life is sacred from conception to natural death. All human life! A human’s worth is not determined by what they offer, but by who they are - A living human being created by God and for God and in His Image!

But our society is too practical for all of this. It can simplify everything down to an ugly and devilish ideal of cost effectiveness. A human is only worth what it can give to me or to something that may benefit me down the road.

We don’t see Christ in the poor anymore - we see just another burden on society. This isn’t a political issue, it’s a natural effect of a depraved society steeped in commercialism and meism (“me” being the center of all that is and all that matters).

 

[Rascalking]

I understand where you’re coming from, but the issue of the poor and other marginalized people in society transcends political affiliation and social strata.

I’m not sure you do. I strongly support helping the poor-and that doesn’t include me sharing in their poverty.

I’d rather make them rich than make everyone else poor. Of course the truly needy should be helped. No one argues that. How is what they argue.

 

[Black_Rose]

Well, we, or should I say many of the ones that I know-care deeply about the poor.

Do you think people will openly opposing given to the poor, especially on a public venue such as an online forum? People may privately have similar thoughts to Mark Furhman for instance:

“You know these people here, we got all this money going to Ethiopia for what. To feed a bunch of dumb wild ape ****** that their own government won’t even feed.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapes

I do not see how private charity is inherently superior, from a consequentialist perspective, to methods that involve statism. I do not see why one should ignore the virtue and accomplishments of people who used the state (or attempted to) to enhance their nation’s welfare. For instance, my favorite figures throughout history are bureaucrats and statesmen exhibiting competence and virtue. These include Gunnar Myrdal, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Wang Anshi, and Lin Zexu. The latter two are bureaucrats who passed the civil service exam (keju) from the Song and Qing Dynasty respectively.

I also do not see why engaging in private charity is more valuable than actually investigating and elucidating, with intellectual rigor, the causes of the structural nature of political and economic problems, instead of judgmentally blaming it on individuals for their supposed character flaws. The value work of that work, such as Henry CK Liu’s articles, should not be discounted. Often when I read Liu’s work, I am envious of his profound abilities but this coupled simultaneous admiration; I compared him to an “ace” here. I admire Liu for his intellectual brilliance; in-depth knowledge of world history, politics, and economics; his relentless, rigorous, and tenacious drive to elucidate the world; his through and elegant style; and his virtue and honesty.

 

[Rascalking]

Do you think people will openly opposing given to the poor, especially on a public venue such as an online forum? People may privately have similar thoughts to Mark Furhman for instance:

“You know these people here, we got all this money going to Ethiopia for what. To feed a bunch of dumb wild ape ****** that their own government won’t even feed.”

.

What are you talking about? And who is Mark Furhman?

 

[Black_Rose]

What are you talking about? And who is Mark Furhman?

I am simply saying that people do not overly opposing giving to the poor because they do not want to sound ghoulish. I assume that Furhman would being rather candid in his remarks on those tapes, and he did not expect many of his remarks to be released publicly such as his disregard for famine victims. Of course, if Furhman knew that those tapes would be heard in Court a few years later, he probably wouldn’t have said those remarks

Two mouse clicks would answer your question about Mark Furhman.

Also, I argued that private charity is not superior to the welfare state.

 

[Rascalking]

I am simply saying that people do not overly opposing giving to the poor because they do not want to sound ghoulish. I assume that Furhman would being rather candid in his remarks on those tapes, and he did not expect many of his remarks to be released publicly such as his disregard for famine victims. Of course, if Furhman knew that those tapes would be heard in Court a few years later, he probably wouldn’t have said those remarks

Two mouse clicks would answer your question about Mark Furhman.

Also, I argued that private charity is not superior to the welfare state.

Um, ok.

In regards to “two mouse clicks” no thanks. I don’t really care who he is. I’ll be able to sleep at night not knowing this.

And your entitled to your opinion, as am I.

 

[Middleman]

I’m sorry to both of you. My post was unintentionally offensive. This is what I’ve observed in my own community.

You may not be aware of what people are doing privately. You may be making assumptions.

Also, no one wants homeless people rummaging through their trash. Many of those people have drug, alcohol, or mental problems. What is wrong with not wanting disturbed people hanging around?

 

[josephdaniel29]

I have to be a defender of Protestants in my area but they are active in taking care of the poor here in Shreveport, LA. Protestants are the far majority in Shreveport especially Baptists and Methodist. We Catholics and Protestants for the most part work hand in hand with the poor in supporting food banks, etc.

One thing i have always noticed is that there are more homeless people to be found in locations that are predominately liberal or Democrat. I wonder why that is?

I live in Jacksonville Fl and there are four homeless missions downtown, three Protestant and one secular.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I do not see how private charity is inherently superior, from a consequentialist perspective, to methods that involve statism. I do not see why one should ignore the virtue and accomplishments of people who used the state (or attempted to) to enhance their nation’s welfare. For instance, my favorite figures throughout history are bureaucrats and statesmen exhibiting competence and virtue. These include Gunnar Myrdal, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Wang Anshi, and Lin Zexu. The latter two are bureaucrats who passed the civil service exam (keju) from the Song and Qing Dynasty respectively.

I also do not see why engaging in private charity is more valuable than actually investigating and elucidating, with intellectual rigor, the causes of the structural nature of political and economic problems, instead of judgmentally blaming it on individuals for their supposed character flaws. .

That’s easy. Public (state) charity is not charity. It is theft and redistribution. Taking the fruits of one’s labor under threat of imprisonment and deciding on high to whom it should go, is not charity nor justice. A government bureaucracy has no heart, cannot love, and does not do anything unless it further’s its own agenda.
Private charity from individuals, on the other hand, comes from the heart.