Here is one more example that the conservative Christians who make up the Republican base do not use the teachings of Jesus, to feed and cloth the poor and to look after children, as a guide for their positions on public policy. Rather, they see things like food stamps as direct competitors. If the government feeds the hungry, it makes it harder to put butts in the pews.
I can kind of understand that, but what I don’t get is the vitriol Republicans spew at people who receive government aid. If they are so damn unworthy, then why give them church charity?
I don’t get how these two attitudes can co-exist in people’s minds.
They have minds?
They only want to help people who fall in line and believe what they do. They are not really talking about helping anyone else.
It can. Because to a significant number of them, their faith is simply another token they use to identify with the tribe. A chit to be used at their convenience to reinforce the mores of the group or to gain credibility within it.
And that is really a shame. Most of the local food pantries around here are staffed and overseen by people who are religious, and many are doing it as part of their “faith walk”. They really feel that it is part of a mission that they have been called to. Virtually all of them vote Republican. I respect them for walking the walk, when it comes to helping those in the community who are less fortunate. I do find it hard to reconcile their charity with most anything their chosen political party practices or espouses. But these people’s religion is a much bigger part of their lives than their politics. I just wish they could see the disconnect that exists between them.
Food Stamps benefit cuts not only hurt the poor, but also hurt the Farm Economy. As rural farmers will see less of a demand for the crops they grow.
That is the reason the christians hate free school lunch, the UN, and the Red Cross. All that free food and shelter and no one has to thank God.
I honestly have no idea who is more idiotic, Boo:
You or my wife.
She asks the same questions.
It is the wrong question. You are trying to apply logic to crazy… crazy as in certifiably insane.
Of COURSE it MAKES NO SENSE. It is senseless.
That’s not that hard to unravel. They think of it as two wholly discrete groups of people. Unworthy people get nothing. Worthy people can get church charity or government aid, as long as the government aid is something (1) they can be determined to have earned or deserved, or (2) temporary, or both.
“People who receive government aid” doesn’t mean, you know, people who receive government aid. It means lazy people who rely on handouts and probably have either a dark complexion or speak Spanish. The people who receive government aid know that the category “People who receive government aid” doesn’t include them.
When you say it like that… it makes perfect sense…??
It’s because, from their point of view, the government is replacing their (theoretical) charity with distributive justice. And as we all know, Republicans don’t believe in distributive justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice
Because of “entitlement.”
If a church gives food and shelter to the indigent, that’s charity — it’s a gift, which means that its giving reflects well on the giver. It’s “Christian generosity.”
But if the government gives food and shelter to the same people, suddenly the message changes. Now, society seems to be saying that they deserve these things — that they shouldn’t be indigent at all.
It’s like that line in Citizen Kane that draws the same distinction: Leland tells Kane that when “the working man” (Kane’s poetic conceit) turns into organized labor, suddenly they want things “as their right, rather than as your gift.”
To you and me, the difference is meaningless: the hungry are being institutionally fed. But to the Christian Right, the difference is as vast as that between following Christ and giving in to “godless Communism.”
Yep, that’s it. It’s about their vanity. Being forced to give through taxes just doesn’t differentiate them from you. Because what’s the point in giving if you have to? You should want to, dammit, and if no one wants to…then God will deal with it.
You are on to something here. To the Christian right there is a moral dimension to charity that is obviated by government handouts. This is a very deep subject. Very briefly, a couple of thoughts: the receiver of Christian charity is, by mutual if unspoken consent, abasing him or herself before the giver, acknowledging their own unworthiness. For the Christian right, this is as it should be, as there is no chance for redemption if the receiver of charity has not confessed his or her sins. The confession is implicit in the acceptance of the charity. A polite and heartfelt “thank you” to the charitable giver is an important element of the transaction.
I recall as a youth being encouraged to bring canned goods to school for a thanksgiving food drive. We put together baskets to take to the homes of “poor people”. The particular poor person we approached chased us off the porch of his home. Unwilling to abase himself before a couple of well-fed fatuous schoolkids, I guess.
I think you all are being FAR too charitable in attributing motives to GOP/Conservative/Christianists.
They’re sociopathic narcissistic Philistines.
ABSOLUTELY. You have to actually be willing to talk to evangelical Christians to grasp their motivation, which I do think is fairly well explained here. Remember, the core of Christianity is about sin and redemption. That doctrinal matter may rest pretty lightly on “liberal” Christians, but the situation is very different with conservative evangelicals.
Enough of the stuff about how “they” are all clinically insane or psychopaths.
Good thoughts.
There is another part of “gubmint cheese” programs which you left out. The Xtian charity can be given to the deserving, and the xtians will inform you when you become undeserving. Gubmint cheese falleth on the just and the unjust.
In certain groups it’s about winning converts. Gov programs win no converts for those groups {in fact may win “converts” for Democrats} Contrast the Catholic 20th century worker priest movement
(e.g. http://www.catholiclabor.org/gen-art/loew.htm)
Ultimately, it’s about aid getting to people who aren’t decent – and you can tell they’re not decent because they wouldn’t be allowed into the church. There’s no way they’d give them church charity – let their own church do that, and if they’re not decent enough to get into a rich one, well, that’s as much as they deserve.