Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    TOO MANY TIMES!
    
    

Re. 1

	I agree.  Jesus never intended to forever exempt us from our
responsibilities toward the poor when he made this statement.

	Yet I have heard well-meaning people seemingly justify the very
existance of the poor by these words.

Peace,
Richard

    
    > Yet I have heard well-meaning people seemingly justify the very
    > existance of the poor by these words.

    Recently Senator Phil Gramm, the republican presidential candidate,
    justified the tax cuts to the wealthy proposed by his party by saying
    "a poor person never gave *me* a job," indicating his contempt for the
    poor. But then again, you said well-meaning people...

    	Eric

    I think we also need to ask ourselves how much of the affluence we enjoy
    was built at the expense of the disposable poor.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    	We also have to keep in mind that no matter how much money we
    	give to certain poor people, they will always end up poor again.  
    	And that even if you take away all of the wealth of certain rich 
    	people, over time they will end up being rich (materially) again.
    
    	Rumor has it that Rodney King is already broke.
    
    	Trying to change that through tax policy and social engineering
    	is futile.

    
    re .5

    So you agree with Sen. Gramm? The wealthy are more deserving of tax
    relief than the poor?

    Yes there will always be poor people. However, you make the error of
    assuming that the poor will always be the *same* people. In fact you
    indicate that people are predisposed -- by genetics or conditioning, I
    don't know -- to be either rich or poor, and that attempts to alter the
    natural order of things is futile. The senator goes one step further
    and show his contempt for the poor.

    We may always have poverty, but the social, material and physical chasm
    between the rich and the poor is unconscionable in this country. Using
    the poor, as a class, as the whipping boy for what ails America is
    despicable. Once it was the pinko-commies, today it's the welfare
    queens. 
    
    I'm starting to rant, aren't I.... sorry.
    
    	Eric

Certainly the poor have neither a monopoly on, nor an immunity from
foolishness and wastefulness.

Jesus tended to be lax in criticizing the poor.  He call them blessed.

Jesus tended to be more critical of the affluent.

Shalom,
Richard

               <<< Note 428.7 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

> Jesus tended to be more critical of the affluent.

    	And rightly so.  For to whom more is given, more is expected.
    
    	I knew this very wealthy couple who now live on the harbor in
    	Boston.  He had his own consulting business, she had her own
    	construction business.  (As an aside, "very wealthy" is kind
    	of relative.  I'm sure that Bill Gates makes more in a year
    	than they will ever make in their lifetime.  But I digress.)	
    
    	They were one of the most generous couples I knew.  Others
    	felt the same way about them.  A friend of theirs embroidered
    	a picture of a camel with a thread in its mouth leaping through 
    	the eye of a giant needle.  If any couple could be the camel
    	to make it through the needle, they are it.

    <<< Note 428.6 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    So you agree with Sen. Gramm? The wealthy are more deserving of tax
>    relief than the poor?
    
    	Please reread my entry.  It does not say that.  It says that
    	tax manipulation should not a vehicle for social reform.  Nobody
    	deserves tax relief more than another if taxation is fair.  
    	Many current inequities in the tax code exist simply because
    	of attempts at social reform, and further attempts to exact
    	some new result merely introduce more inequities.
    
>    Yes there will always be poor people. However, you make the error of
>    assuming that the poor will always be the *same* people. In fact you
>    indicate that people are predisposed -- by genetics or conditioning, I
>    don't know -- to be either rich or poor, and that attempts to alter the
>    natural order of things is futile. 
    
    	Please reread my entry.  I clearly say SOME people, though your
    	entry gives the impression that I said (or implied) ALL.  And
    	I would venture to guess that for those people it is most likely
    	a matter of conditioning.  Can you agree that certain people will
    	always find a way to be wealthy, and certain people will always
    	end up poor?  If not, we'll have to agree to disagree on this
    	point.
    
    	As for Gramm's statement, the current tax code manipulation is
    	an attempt to improve the economic workings of the federal 
    	government.  If this government bankrupts, that would be the
    	absolutely worst thing that could happen to the poor.  From
    	that perspective the quote you entered in .3 is quite valid
    	and equally correct.  It has nothing to do with contempt for
    	the poor.  It has everything to do with good governmental
    	policy.
    
    	Now, I disagree with Gramm's statement for another reason.  He
    	allowed the arena for the debate to be defined by his opponents,
    	and he severely disadvantaged himself by allowing them set the
    	ground rules.  The tax cuts that are being proposed are NOT
    	primarily for the wealthy.  THAT should have been his answer.
    	In trying to defend the cuts as his opponent described them, 
    	he allowed the misconception to stick that these are cuts for 
    	the rich.
    
    	The bulk of the cuts are targetted for middle-class and below,
    	and any tax cut that ends up ultimately increasing the floor
    	below which taxes are not due can only be described as improving
    	the tax burden of the poor.  (And the child credit has an income
    	ceiling above which it cannot be collected.)

    
    >> So you agree with Sen. Gramm? The wealthy are more deserving of tax
    >> relief than the poor?

    > Please reread my entry.  It does not say that.

    You were somewhat ambiguous regarding your sentiments on Sen. Gramm's
    comments. That's why I asked.

    > Nobody deserves tax relief more than another if taxation is fair.

    Who get's to decide what's fair? Lobbyists? PAC? Sen. Gramm? Sen.
    Kennedy?

    > Many current inequities in the tax code exist simply because of
    > attempts at social reform, and further attempts to exact some new
    > result merely introduce more inequities.

    For example?


    > Please reread my entry.  I clearly say SOME people, though your entry
    > gives the impression that I said (or implied) ALL.

    Joe,

    Please accept my apologies for misreading your note in this regard.

    Eric 

    
    Hi Folks,
    
    If I may jump in here, I'm awfully busy, but taxation can be measured
    objectively.  If I pay more taxes or less taxes on my income than someone 
    else then there is a tax inequity.  And if I pay tax on my income to 
    provide income for someone else, who is paying no taxes by and large, 
    then that is a use of the tax system to purposefully produce an inequity.
    This is exactly what is happening in our welfare state.  Not only is it
    grossly unfair and inequitable to the taxpayer but the result, the
    systemic destruction of the work ethic among some poor people, is a
    catastrophe.
    
    jeff 

    Eric:
    
    As an example...
    
    As a wage class 3, I have the ability to make overtime.  I find that
    working overtime is not worth it because I jusp to a higher tax
    bracket and break even.
    
    Hence I am being penalized for achievement and therefore choose to be
    slothful, lazy, and leave at 5:00.  I find this to be interference.
    
    -Jack

        Another example:  I get a tax break because I have a home
        that is mortgaged; as a result the incentive to work hard
        among homeowners is diminished, as is the incentive to pay
        off mortgage debt.

        Bob

Matthew 19:26  But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men
this is impossible; but with �God� all �things� are �possible.�

Interesting that Jesus made this statement just after emphasizing how hard
it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, even harder than threading
a camel through the eye of a needle.

Shalom,
Richard

    <<< Note 428.10 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    > Nobody deserves tax relief more than another if taxation is fair.
>
>    Who get's to decide what's fair? Lobbyists? PAC? Sen. Gramm? Sen.
>    Kennedy?
    
    	Ah, this is the crux of the whole problem, for what appears to
    	be fair to one person is unfair in the eyes of another, and
    	vice versa.  Even more, what is clearly fair from one perspective
    	(federal revenue generation, for example) can be clearly unfair
    	from another (social engineering, for example.)
    
    	I'm sorry, but I simply can't give a concise answer to your
    	question.  In fact, your question answers itself, as I'm sure
    	you knew when you posed it.  But I think I've shown how, given
    	the issue at hand when Gramm made his statement, his statement
    	was quite correct.

>    > Many current inequities in the tax code exist 
>
>    For example?
    
    	Low-income tax credits, home mortgage interest deductions,
    	extra exemptions for the blind, all the various tax deductions
    	and credits that are specific to various corporate interests,
    	graduated income tax tables.  Need more?

I'm concerned that it's so easy for some Christians to take issue with
the poor for not pulling their weight.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    There are the poor and then there are the exploiters of the system.
    The ones who could become evil Reaganites quite easily had they chosen
    to but chose otherwise.  These are the one's people take exception to.
    
    -Jack

    There is a hard balance to strike. I think we are called to be generous
    and compassionate and to help those in need. On the other hand I 
    think people have a personal responsibility for themselves as well.

    There are people who are mentally and emotionally incapable of taking
    care of themselves. There are people who for one reason or another,
    have found themselves in difficult circumstances and need just a little
    help to get back on their feet again, and to get through a difficult
    time period. There are others who feel the world owes them a living,
    who feel justified to put their hand out without doing anything in
    return, or who feel justified in using theft, fraud, or any other means
    to get what they want without doing legitmate work for it. 

    I find the number of people looking for aid to be overwhelming. I find 
    myself contributing to a few groups such as Compassion and the Nashua Food
    Pantry, and then helping those whom I know personally or whom I know of
    through some means such as my synagogue.  I have torn up monetary appeals
    for money by different charity organizations without ever even looking at
    them.  I have given to some of these groups from time to time only to 
    discover that suddenly, we're getting 3 or 4 such appeals in the mail
    daily. We have been part of groups who have pooled resources and made 
    anonymous gifts to people we knew who were layed off from their jobs, 
    having a difficult time finding a new one, going through their savings, 
    and about to have default on their mortgages. Or maybe a smaller gift
    for someone who could not afford to go on a special trip or event like
    retreat although they are managing to meet their regular bills. These
    personal outreaches have been the most satisfying even if we didn't always
    get to see the recipients reaction.

    Difficult circumstances are not always financial either, and
    reaching out may be doing something to share someone's grief with them,
    or helping them with some chore, or volunteering a little child-minding
    sometime.  

    I think people can be over-coddled. I also think we need to exercise
    compassion and generosity as a way of life, and avoid getting callous by
    the frequent appeals for charity. Be wise in giving, but not hardhearted.

    Leslie

.17

>    There are the poor and then there are the exploiters of the system.
>    The ones who could become evil Reaganites quite easily had they chosen
>    to but chose otherwise.  These are the one's people take exception to.

Oh, Jack.  I'm familiar with the ideology of the Newt Age prophet Reagan,
but what of the teachings of Jesus?

Richard

ZZ    Oh, Jack.  I'm familiar with the ideology of the Newt Age prophet
ZZ    Reagan, but what of the teachings of Jesus?
    
    Richard, two things come to mind here.
    
    At the current rate, our government has become completely wreckless. 
    What you are advocating above is taking care of the elderly at the
    heavy price of your children and my children.  You fail to understand
    this.  80 year old Mrs. Jones doesn't need to have an MRI everytime she
    has a headache.  
    
    So, how does spending wrecklessly align with the teachings of Jesus? 
    I've never heard of that one.  
    
    Re: The teachings of Jesus.  "If a man does not work, he should not
    eat."  I ask you to define what the apostle is speaking of here in
    scripture.  I've already given you my definition of accountability and
    responsibility.  Apparently, you don't agree with this.
    
    -Jack

If you insist, Jack.

I'm hearing what might seem to be sensible and pragmatic.  I'm not
hearing much of Jesus.*

I think it's a shame that some Christians appear not to make a strong
connection of Jesus with the poor.

I was in a classroom with Rabbi Howard Hirsh a couple of weeks ago.  Rabbi
Hirsh knows more than most Christians I know about the Jewish life of Jesus.
According to Hirsh, one of the ways in which Jesus departed from traditional
Jewish teachings was in his regard for the poor.  Traditional teaching says
that "a poor man is a dead man."

Shalom,
Richard

*I recognize a bit of irony in my own words.  It's more like me to say, "I
know what Jesus said, but what can you say?" :-)

    Well, I believe that Jesus' example IS the random element in how to
    treat the poor.  I am not really insisting on anything but just making
    the observation that there are poor people who of their own free
    volition, choose to be poor.  I don't feel there is anything
    characteristic about coddling people who have no aspirations to become
    a part of society.  I do believe there is definitely a ministry in the
    Church toward those who are needy...and there are some who can be needy
    for a long period of time.  Children for example.  
    
    Having thought about this more last night, I believe God calls us to
    use our resources and stewardship prudently.  As I stated a month ago,
    I believe the poor man on the street who extorts money through guilt
    and false compassion is a thief.  He is stealing from the poor woman on
    the street with her two children.
    
    -Jack

    
    > I believe the poor man on the street who extorts money through guilt
    > and false compassion is a thief.

    Yes, I too am sick of political fund-raising. Here in New Hampshire, we
    are the first to suffer this blight every 2 - 4 years. :^)

    The con-artists, ne'erdowells, and thieves of the system should all be
    pointed out as wrong. However, like the 16-year-old welfare mother,
    these circumstances are in the *huge* minority and yet are used as the
    mallet with which to beat the entire concept of social assistance to
    the poor. Am I say the system is fine? Heck, no! I'm saying we should,
    as Christians, be working to improve the system and quit the mean
    spirited, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, if we aid the rich
    the poor will benefit, assault on the underclass. 

    	Eric

    Well, Jack(.22).  I don't agree, not so much with the details, but with
    the tenor.
    
    Grace and peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Unfortunately the details are ALL that matters and the tenor means
    little to nothing in the content of the message.
    
    Grace and Peace,
    
    -Jack

>    Unfortunately the details are ALL that matters and the tenor means
>    little to nothing in the content of the message.
    
To my mind, it's unfortunately not unlike doing what might be the right
thing for the wrong reason.

Shalom,
Richard

ZZ    To my mind, it's unfortunately not unlike doing what might be the right
ZZ    thing for the wrong reason.
    
    Richard, you used a triple negative....tsk tsk! :-)
    
    -Jack

    Charity is a choice.  As Christians, we should be willing to give of
    our time and money to help others.  This is good.
    
    Welfare is forced.  Money is taken from me, against me will, each and
    every payday and given to other citizens who do not pay taxes.  This is
    not charity, regardless of intentions or rationalizations.  This enslaves 
    recipients as well as taxpayers to a system that spends 3/4 of the money 
    collected to support beaureacracies.  This is an iniquity that has been
    ignored for too long.  We have come to think that the only way to help
    people is via federal handouts- a mentality I find short-sighted at
    best.
    
    If you really want to help your neighbor, social welfare is not the
    way.  The more we can wean people off this corrupt system (and
    eventually do away with the system), the better off our country will
    be.
    
    FWIW, I feel the same way about corporate welfare, farmer welfare
    (subsidies), the Social Security Pyramid scheme, etc. that comes from the 
    federal government.
    
    We got along just fine before New Deal and Great Society came along to
    save us all (and ruin our economy), thank you very much.
    
    
    -steve

    
    > We got along just fine before New Deal and Great Society came along to
    > save us all (and ruin our economy), thank you very much.

    Who's this "We," kimosabi. :^)

    "We" got along fine before labor safety laws. "We" got along fine before
    environmental laws (toxic waste, DDT, etc.). "We" got along fine before
    the 14th amendment. My point is the New Deal and Great Society came
    along specifically because we *weren't* getting along just fine.

    You seem to want changes in technology, commerce, economy, standard of
    living and yet no change in legislation or society. You want this
    little piece of the cosmos --  this fairy tale of America as it once
    was -- to remain constant while all around you, the world you live in is
    changing. Buy a thousand acres in Montana and build yourself a cabin;
    grow your own food and make you own soap... Build your Shagri-la and
    keep everyone out. Short of that, I don't see much hope of setting the
    clock back to the days of social and economic Darwinism.

    Eric:
    
    As Glen has mentioned in the past, there are ways to reform things and
    not necessarily scrap them.
    
    Social Security IS a scam pyramid operation...always has been.  I would
    be for the adoption of required stipends to be put into special 401Ks
    that CANNOT be touched by the government.  When one turns 65, then they 
    receive what is left in there and are completely independent from
    everybody else.
    
    -Jack

    re: .29

>    "We" got along fine before labor safety laws. 
    
    And now we have gone overboard.  OSHA costs business needless billions
    every year, which is just one of the governmental restricting arms on
    our economy.  The pendulum hath swung too far.
    
>    "We" got along fine before
>    environmental laws (toxic waste, DDT, etc.). 
    
    And now we have official government "wetlands" made out of people's
    backyard puddles, which takes autonomy and control of said land from
    those who OWN it and gives it to the government.  The pendulum hath
    swung too far.  
    
>    "We" got along fine before
>    the 14th amendment. 
    
    This does not fit in with the rest of your list.
    
>    My point is the New Deal and Great Society came
>    along specifically because we *weren't* getting along just fine.

    Yes we were.  Contrary to popular opinion, New Deal did very little to
    help in its era.  In the name of emergency, though, it was passed
    (after being first ruled unconstitutional once or twice, before new
    justices were placed in SCOTUS) to the detriment of all generations
    thereafter.  We did NOT need it then, and we only "need" it now due to
    the fact that so many are dependent upon taxpayer handouts, which is a
    direct and logical result of what New Deal did.
    
    Name one federal program of New Deal that worked effectively and
    efficiently.  Name one that has had a positive benefit that can still be 
    felt today.  Name one that didn't help to bloat government.  Name one
    that did not give government more control over our lives. 
    
>    You seem to want changes in technology, commerce, economy, standard of
>    living and yet no change in legislation or society. You want this
>    little piece of the cosmos --  this fairy tale of America as it once
>    was -- to remain constant while all around you, the world you live in is
>    changing. 
    
    If change = socialism, then you are right.  I don't want it. 
    
>    Buy a thousand acres in Montana and build yourself a cabin;
>    grow your own food and make you own soap... Build your Shagri-la and
>    keep everyone out. Short of that, I don't see much hope of setting the
>    clock back to the days of social and economic Darwinism.
    
    Even if I did the above, I still would not be free.  I cannot own land,
    as I will always have to pay the government "rent" on my own property-
    forever.  This is not freedom, nor is this true land ownership.
    
    Wake up.  Your social experiments of the past 60 years have FAILED.  They
    have brought this nation to the bring of moral and financial
    bankruptcy.  When will folks finally realize that there is no such
    thing as a free lunch?  When will folks realize that you cannot morally
    force compassion out of your fellow man (by stealing his money and
    doling it out to the poor)?  If you have compassion for the poor, give
    them YOUR money.  Let me spend mine as I see best.
    
    We are responsible for ourselves and family.  We should have the
    freedom to succeed without limits or fail utterly.  If someone wants to
    personally take pity on those who fail, then I have no problem with
    that (charity).  In fact, I'm more than willing to help out myself- as
    long as it is of my OWN FREE WILL.  I resent having no choice but to
    support the wasteful programs that have proven to be abysmal failures. 
    
    
    -steve

    .28
    
    I don't believe charity is a choice for the Christian.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    <-- Sure it is.  However, we are accountable for our choices.  
    
    -steve

    Charity is a commandment from God but it is still of ones own free
    volition.
    
    -Jack

    .33
    
    I don't believe charity is a choice for the Christian.  If it were
    it would not be a commandment.  It is not a request.  It is not option.
    It is a requirement.  It is an obligation.

    I believe the Christian and the Jew understand it as such.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Actually, in the context of being bondservants of the most high,
    Richard is right in that it is our obligation.  It is however an
    obligation we should be practicing freely and gladly, is this what you
    are getting at??
    
    -Jack

    re: .35
    
    A requirement for what, Richard?
    
    
    Of course, this has nothing to do with what prompted me to reply to
    this note (welfare). 
    
    
    -steve

428.37

>    Of course, this has nothing to do with what prompted me to reply to
>    this note (welfare). 

Oh, but it does.  You might not see the connection, but it does.

Your Note 428.28

>>    Charity is a choice.

>>    Welfare is forced.

I'm saying charity is not a choice for the Christian.  For the Christian,
the legal obligation to subsidize social programs (which do the intended
good for a lot of people we hardly ever hear about) is not unlike the
commandment of charity from God Almighty.

Both are imposed from the outside.  Both can be evaded.  Both have
potential consequences for doing so.

Richard

    
    Charity is a choice, as love is a choice... as following the example of
    Jesus is a choice.
    
    Eric