Video: The Moral State of the Union (by Jim Wallis)
Tonight, President Bush delivers his 7th State of the Union address. We are certain to hear about the President's plan for stimulating the economy.
Yet, for many people of faith, there is a hunger for a new vision of our life together where bold changes are enacted to address the most pressing moral issues of our time. I’ve written about this hunger for change in my latest book, The Great Awakening , in which I talk about how spiritually-based movements for social change have transformed our nation. The abolition movement to end slavery, the fight to end child labor, the civil rights movement – all of these were movements led by people of faith who hungered for a better way.
I believe we’re at another important moment in history. Together, we can end the moral scandal of poverty, the degradation of God's creation, the cultural assault on our families and children, and seeing war as the only way to confront evil. You can watch my reflections on "The Moral State of the Union" here, click here for the complete prepared text, or download the complete audio as an mp3.
Add to:
Category: Faith and Politics, Multimedia, Video
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"I am not a partisan", but "gee, I parrot ONLY positions of Democrats, and I subscribe only to Democrat orthodoxy."
I don't buy your "non partisan" position for the slightest moment.
But to address what you think is wrong here... We agree on some things.
One is that a loss of godly belief in moral values ends up with a nation drifting morally, and as with ALL godless societies, it drifts toward anarchy, valueless hedonism, and eventually, internal collapse, as corruption and lack of respect for law and humanity itself.
What I think we may disagree about, is that you see political policies as part of the solution to moral issues. You specifically mentioned Iraq. To simplistically insist that we must pull back because in Iraq, guns and the military are involved - is to place almost absurd radical ideological absolutes in place of what's missing in the first place - judgement and widespread dedication to solid foundational principles.
And another thing we disagree about, is that we can use politics to improve our belief or faith. OR, the other way around This runs directly in contrast to our most precious value - the strict separation of doctrine and faith and our limited government.
You prescribe a vision that seems compelling at first, but fails under examination as being not just unwise, but dangerous beyond comprehension. The governance of this nation is little different from the governance of a business.
Why yes, I as a Christian am obligated to have good policies for my employees. But I have to made decisions to hire, lay off, invest, sell, etc, on a rational basis based on the economics and business conditions, markets, etc. In other words, I HAVE to be a good steward of those things with which I have been entrusted. While I would love to hire the downtrodden, pay for all thier needs, and do everything for them they could ever need, but if I did that, it would be precisely no time at all, and I would be bankrupt, they would be jobless, and nobody would have anything at all.
So, when I choose to be careful, make wise decisions, use money most effectively, etc, have I lost my faith, or am I honoring it?
Iraq is a land of millions of people who have never drawn a free breath before. They have never had a just government. They have never lived under ANY moral government. Thier hopes, dreams, wishes to learn, and even thier religion... All utterly straightjacketed.
You insist that the only way to see Iraq, is a "war" and that we must "end" that war by leaving, and it's your "faith" and "moral values" that dictate this. And you insist these are absolutes, without compromise.
Yet, I cannot imagine agreeing to allow Iraq to slip back into the clutches of the horrible evil that ruled there for so long, and pervades every nation around it (and I'm not talking about Islam, here, I'm talking about governance by absolute repression and control, coupled with almost total corruption).
How can you be so absolute about "leaving", but have NO concerns for the whole region, which so desperately needs to breath free, to let the light of liberty and openness shine on and dispell the oppression, corruption, and evil?
How is it that you are the arbiter of faith and morality, and have the power to define what is politically moral and what is not, not judging the politics by thier effectiveness, but by the stated morality of those who promote various policies, and not the rational analysis of those policies?
How is it that you OR A POLITICAL PARTY ( I don't care WHCIH party) can declare thier political policies blessed by God and everything else wrong?
Posted by: mark | January 28, 2008 6:18 PM
jim; tell me where in history there has been no poverty. and what your solution is. tell me when there has been no degradation of God's creation. and what your solution is. and, tell me when there has been no wars, no despots, no dictators, no evil. you're march to a great awakening needs to start with an evangelizing. bringing people to christ so they can pass on the good news and begin to change the world. carping on governments to implement your ideas of good will not work. selling political candidates who seem to agree with you will not work. selling books to people who agree with you will not work. what you like to call spiritually based movements were really social movements. sharing the good news of Jesus Christ is a movement that will work. please, try to get out of your professional religious sales projects and into evangelical, born again,christianiity.
Posted by: jerry | January 28, 2008 9:28 PM
Jim
One of the greatest deturants to change in DC are the un-elected beurocrats that run the different dept. in DC. I learned that from a former neighbor of mine who was a Senatorial Aid. He told me that several times he was able to reach acorss the isle and find people willing to make it happen.
I also have yet to read in history where a country or soceity have taxed themselves into prosperity. The poor will always be with us because there are some that are willing to go through life on what they can get free from others or the gov't. rather than work. They are able to work and there are jobs - they just refuse to join in.
We are our brothers keeper - but I do not read where we have to be there caretaker for the rest of their lives.
Yes something has to be done - but what and when.
Oh - the senatorial aid - worked for Paul Wellstone.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | January 28, 2008 11:17 PM
"Together, we can end the moral scandal of poverty, the degradation of God's creation, the cultural assault on our families and children, and seeing war as the only way to confront evil."
--This statement sums up well the problem with contemporary liberalism, which refuses to acknowledge the fallenness of man and creation. You can no more "end" these things than you can eradicate sin.
Posted by: jesse | January 29, 2008 5:55 AM
Jesse - Good point. I very much like Obama, but that's one of the things that rubs me the wrong way about him too, as well as Jim Wallis. He seems to think that all these problems are easily solved if we just had unity and hope, instead of division. Now I'm all for working together and changing the type of rhetoric we use. I much prefer Obama's message to that of Edwards for exactly that reason. Edwards seeks to divide while Obama tries to bring people together, but that alone is not going to solve our problems. These problems don't exist because of a lack of unity, they exist because of selfish, greedy human nature.
Posted by: Eric | January 29, 2008 9:28 AM
You know, just because you don't think you can eradicate war, poverty, or environmental degradation, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
And it certainly doesn't mean you should decry other people who make an effort.
If you live your life with a foundation of hopelessness and inevitability, your time on this earth will be complacent. Why discourage people who live with a sense of purpose and redemption for the here and now?
Posted by: Anna | January 29, 2008 9:49 AM
He seems to think that all these problems are easily solved if we just had unity and hope, instead of division.
I think all reformers have to talk about ending a particular evil. I mean, can you imagine if MLK talked about lessening the evil of racism as opposed to ending it?
The point is to try and do something as opposed to taking the determinist view that we are all fallen anyway so what's the point of trying.
Posted by: splinterlog | January 29, 2008 10:05 AM
Anna,
I was hardly arguing against efforts to reduce such things (I assume you know this). What I was hitting on was a fundamental deficiency of the liberal worldview. Saying "we can end poverty" is like saying "we can end anger, lust, greed, etc."
The proposition that these things can somehow be eradicated is also rooted in a low view of humanity. People are dynamic. They aren't lab rats. Bad behavior is not a disease that can be "cured."
Posted by: jesse | January 29, 2008 10:06 AM
Anger and Lust are not social evils which is why we cannot "end" them. Did we end the evil of social racism in the US in the 1960s? I think that we largely did even if systematic and personal racism remain.
We can try to end war poverty on a social level - even if systematic and personal poverty remain. We can try to end war - even if systematic and personal violence remain. In both instances, the scale of difference could be as revolutionary as the fruit of the civil rights movement.
Posted by: splinterlog | January 29, 2008 10:22 AM
splinterlog - I agree with you about the word choice, and I don't have a problem with trying to "end" things even if we know it is not completely possible. My issue is with the belief that some ambiguous "unity" is going to do it.
Posted by: Eric | January 29, 2008 11:26 AM
Jim,
I know you won't take the naysayers to heart, who seem to use the generous gift of this forum to make formulaic knee-jerk attacks on whatever you say, even the least contentious and the ones that everyone could be in agreement with, if they're simply not intersted in creating division.
Who, then, are they really working for, even if they don't yet realize it?
We come from different political paths, yet I and my family could watch and say "Amen," for we take you sincerely at your words, which are humble and turn away wrath.
Here's hoping the book makes a tremendous influence in inspiring and shaping debate so that things can really happen that create real change, and that people will not be fearful of positive change.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 29, 2008 12:28 PM
I am all for a government that restrains evil and advances good. I am all for a Body of Christ that battles sin, disease, bondage and death on all fronts. Do any of you not want that?????
I like candidates who argue something more than, "I'm against evil and for good."
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 29, 2008 12:34 PM
ST--Knee-jerk reaction is right! In just a few posts I have heard these predictable reactions:
1. Social change and finding a cure for poverty=taxing the snoogy out of everyone (how do you know that is what is meant by those who advocate for such? Maybe we should, I don't know, talk about IDEAS).
2. The poor are poor because they choose to be poor, so we really don't need to worry about them, because they get what they work for, which is nothing, given they don't work and just sponge off others. Funny, I never heard Jesus make such judgements on people. He just helped them.
3. Everything is going to hell in a handbasket, we can't change anything, so why should we try (jerry, you seem to say that isn't what you are saying, but that is the implicit message in yours and other's statements).
Can we solve all these problems? Probably not. But isn't it more useful to look at them as problems we CAN solve, rather than keep talking about how impossible it is to solve them? I prefer a message of hope rather than all this constant nay-saying. I've said this before, and I'll say it again--I'm tired of people saying "it can't be done" or constantly stomping on other's ideas without themselves showing that they a) have any understanding or empathy for the problem and b) offering absolutely no solutions in place of the solution just offered. It's easier to stay polarized than it is to work together, but we need to work together. So next time any of you reacts by saying why something won't work, please offer a solution yourself!
Posted by: squeaky | January 29, 2008 1:00 PM
Squeaky,
You're right on the money. What kind of pathetic lives do these people live? They lurk around Sojo all day just waiting for another posted article or video to attack. There's something very sick, and even unchristian, about people who get their jollies that way.
Posted by: carl copas | January 29, 2008 1:54 PM
Squeaky--I looked at message by John Piper about racial reconciliation--and how to stay in conversation when you've just put your best effort forward only to be shouted down. The shout downs (or knee jerks) seem..... Words can't describe.
I appreciate your attempts to stay in conversation.
There is a fuzziness to Wallis' message that I think opens the door to many knee jerks. His message extends far beyond Federal action, politics, and public life--to the common good, social movements, communities of faith and personal transformation.
But it always seems to be layered onto the political (e.g. State of the Union Speech); and hence difficult to know what he is really talking about at any given point.
Hence, some comments on other threads become impatient and just want him to drop everything else and say, "I am a political activist seeking the following ten actions by the Federal Government."
It is this lack of boundaries that causes so much disagreement. Wisdom has to do with there "being a time and a place for everything under the sun." It has to do with knowing the time and place and doing it.
On the other side, those listening to Jim need to acknowledge, for instance, that a moral call to end poverty, is not a call for the Federal Government to end poverty; but rather that on the basis of moral commitment that it does its part to end poverty. He is not asking government to become our saviour.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 29, 2008 1:58 PM
I think, over the last century, we've seen first the failure of liberalism, then the subsequent failures of conservatism as a subsititute, as limited ideologies that can't encompass the holistic and reality-based approach that will be necessary if we're to move towards the next stage of human progress. History isn't static, so conservatism can't limit answers to tradition - and which tradition? Do we really want to "stand athwart history, yelling, Stop!" as Buckley wryly put it? Liberalism's great mistake is to go down a path that dismisses the value of the best traditions and understandings.
Progress is possible, though the struggles it took historically to get here are relived in internal wars of the human heart of each generation, and ground can be lost as a result as well as advances possible.
It is remarkable in every human heart we have the recognition that "things are not as they ought," at least a beginning for dialog and common ground.
Whatever Jim Wallis' history politically from his youth, he is making a remarkably careful and compelling call to come together that is generous and conciliatory in its language. I think it takes extraordinary courage and vision to open up a forum for potential dialog to bring unity among those of good will - and not automatically dismiss those who have so far come to different conclusions as enemies to be dismissed, but as friends to come and talk and learn together.
Jim really has learned the meaning of peacemaking, which Jesus calls us to. He is willing to substitute this in primacy for whatever approach he himself favored or favors. Instead of being distrustful and looking for hidden agendas,as if we are all doomed to be alienated from others, God and ourselves forever, we ought to trust Christ's sacrifice and the gift of the Holy Spirit to draw us together in unity in Him and in spirit and love, even if we all have differing perspectives to contribute, to be offered as truthful gifts instead of distortions wielded as clubs.
Let's let our coming together be a crucible of love and insight which can inspire all the rest of humanity to which each of us is intimately bonded, to prove to others the possibility and then probablity of peaceful conflict resolution as the norm rather than exception.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 29, 2008 2:18 PM
Squeaky,
I'm interested in seeing where you found these reactions you speak of. I'm afraid your own prejudices are coloring your view of things. I was commenting on the terminology used by Wallis and how behind it lurks a view of human nature that is lacking both scriptural and empirical support.
Posted by: jesse | January 29, 2008 3:59 PM
Ah, yes. It didn't take long for the usual platitudes to emerge about fall of man, can't change the world, save souls instead, etc., with misspellings and all. Thanks Anna and Squeaky and others for articulating thoughtful and patient responses to the drivel.
Funny, I never hear conservatives say "we can't end abortion or stop the increased tolerance of homosexuality, so let's not try."
Criticism of calls for unity sound like just another attempt to provide a religious justification for selfishness. And who wouldn't? Wouldn't we all like to hear that we can pursue holiness by NOT caring about those in society we don't like? Going with our fallen nature can be pretty tempting, especially when we tell ourselves that's what God wants us to do.
Posted by: I and I | January 29, 2008 4:06 PM
squeaky;i don't think things are going to hell at all. i see the world for what it is. you miss the point,,, that wallis and his followers want government to solve problems that they perceive. i don't. social engineers like wallis who commercialize their operations and use "religion" to legitimize themselves just don't seem credible to me. i feel the same way about gore and his global thing. i think that God can change things and i think that evangelizing for Christ can change things.
carl and let justice ;why can't we assume that professing christians are doing something about wallis' problem list? and stop dividing christians. why can't wallis trust christians to do the right thing and let God and the Holy Spirit do their work?
carl seems to have lost his perspective and tolerance. i wonder if he believes in born again, evangelizing christians, and what kind of life he must lead wallowing in his righteousness. you may be wrong carl.
Posted by: jerry | January 29, 2008 4:07 PM
Posted by: carl copas | January 29, 2008 1:54 PM
I am sorta surprized at your comments - does not sound like you. So - to take issue with Wallis and Sojo is 'unchristian'? That ranks right up there with to critize the US is unpatriotic.
The way Wallis and Co. have treated and accessed other Christian leaders in the US and the world - I think the sauce is available for the goose and gander.
There is so much that needs to be dealt with but most refuse to deal with charactor and accountability of an individual. SO - we will continue to have problems and challenges in soceity. I choose to work one heart and mind at a time because I can afect my little corner of the world in a positive way and so far there is free speach, at least for the individual.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 29, 2008 4:27 PM
"why can't we assume that professing christians are doing something about wallis' problem list? and stop dividing christians. why can't wallis trust christians to do the right thing and let God and the Holy Spirit do their work?"
Jerry--Where exactly do you distinguish your stance from Wallis??
I assume you are not an anarchist, advocating no government. Every person, organization, or government has responsibility. No more or no less.
I believe Jerry and Jim both advocate that all individuals and entities govern their affairs to lessen violence and decrease poverty.
Am I misrepresenting your view?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 29, 2008 4:29 PM
Anyone who believes government has no role to play outside expanding an enormous military complete with subsidies to private munitions industries, imposing draconian punishments, lots of jails, an expansive internal spy system, while supposedly and contradictorily thinking that the individual can be left free to himself without governement interference, wants something that never was and never will be.
Flawed human beings cause government to be less than it ought and at the same time more than it ought. How human nature is automatically changed into benign goodness simply by private capitalism without any oversight is never explained and in reality it isn't what happens. Just look at unsupervised and rule-less Wall Street and the recent extreme financial debacles that are harming all of us. It has never been explained by secular advocates just how it is that capitalism redeems the human soul with all its avaricious urges once freed by the scourges of government and accountability.
The emphasis on the unconstrained self and its desires and appetites as freedom can become a celebration of selfishness without limit. Is this what conservatism has come to - the celebration of a relentlessly destructive Darwinist competition in which more and more are cast aside in favor of the ever fewer stronger dominating?
Just how does this result in de facto freedom for the greatest number of human beings, rather than a potential but never achieved one, in which theoretically there is no legal bar to anyone at all becoming a billionaire - this culture's highest reward - but practically it is unachievable? Instead we tilt towards all the unfree consequent ills of crony capitalism and government-sustained monopolies.
Secular conservatism is relentless in seeing life in terms of economics - ironically just like Marxism, as if they are two sides of the same absurdly reductionist and thoroughly materialistic coin. Yet if this reduction of economic life ends up favoring only a minority, is it really about freedom, using its own terms, for all, or only the freedom to dominate by those minority who can, through whatever means without restraint? And all others who might be willing to compete, but despite best efforts are not up to the task, are simply unworthy dross?
This political philosophy owes nothing to Christianity, except perhaps its votes given in exchange for lip service to some of its adherents' religious tenets which are seen as harmless and irrelevant to the main purpose and goals - maintaining the momentum of a status quo endlessly and hopelessly favoring an elite.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 29, 2008 4:33 PM
"Wallis and his followers want government to solve problems that they perceive. i don't...i think that God can change things and i think that evangelizing for Christ can change things."
Now THERE's an original thought. Here's a libertarian who doesn't believe in Bush's pre-emptive war, stays out of the national debate about whther abortion should be illegal, would never sign a petition to ban gay marriage,and doesn't vote. Voting won't solve anything, will it? Just let God annoint the President, and if you evangelize enough women, they won't have abortions.
Posted by: I and I | January 29, 2008 4:33 PM
moderatelad: "I am sorta surprized at your comments - does not sound like you. So - to take issue with Wallis and Sojo is 'unchristian'? That ranks right up there with to critize the US is unpatriotic. "
Moderatelad, you're right. I should have been more careful with my wording, and for that I apologize. For the record, I was not referring to you because you're always sincere (you're also often wrong but that's another story *smile*).
There are certain people who NEVER have a good word to say about anything posted on Sojo. It seems like their only purpose is to lurk about and say nasty things about Wallis and Sojo. Judging from their entries (and that's all we can use to evaluate one another's intentions on here because we don't know one another personally), they're not interested in dialogue. They may very well be, and--to give them the benefit of the doubt--probably are, Christians. But what they write on here suggests otherwise.
Posted by: carl copas | January 29, 2008 5:09 PM
"You're right on the money. What kind of pathetic lives do these people live? They lurk around Sojo all day just waiting for another posted article or video to attack. There's something very sick, and even unchristian, about people who get their jollies that way. "Posted by: carl copas
I too see it that way. It is a shame.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 29, 2008 6:03 PM
Attacking Progressives? It is they who literally attack and alter everything in the New Testament to become something non and anti-Christian. Tax collectors were extreme sinners that were embraced when they repented to not be so over-bearing. ALL, and every social program of Liberals and progressives have one thing in common, taxing honest hardworking families into promoting progressive ills. Abortion is a birth control method mostly used to continue an unfettered life of promiscuity. C'mon now, there is a vaccine needed to prevent promiscuity derived cancer. Progressives discard the immutable teaching of Jesus on marriage as a man and a woman, to promote what no Christian in history, up until the hippy sixties. even had the rudeness to talk about. Now, we see the "pride" in abominations from Progressives in every public school.
Great Awakening??????????????
Before revival there is a call to repentance for God's people. Repentance doesn't exist in Progressive ideology because people are somehow born with an excuse for their sin behavior to be not only ignored, but to be celebrated.
Mr. Wallis, you have no Christian right or justification to use that phrase.
Instead of decrying those of us that post opposition to Progressive heresy, why not actually respond with ANY scripture that supports what Progressives have done to the Gospel. You get one thing right and that's it. War and violence is not a Christian ideal. (Don't you wish Muslims would become Christians.)
Posted by: Donny | January 29, 2008 7:10 PM
One thing is for certain... that every lib will do thier utmost to distort or flat out lie about everything a conservative says...
I read with great humor (but despair at the ignorance displayed) at ST's assertion that "conservatism has failed" recently. Hardly. Our ideas BUILT this country, from nothing to the most prosperous and free nation in the world.
Yes, conservative prevailed, just one tiny little smidgeon during the 90's and we saw immediate unprecedented growth and personal opportunity explode for all.
And yes, we're always accused of "being all about money". Gee. The goverment... IS ALL ABOUT MONEY. First it taxes, then it spends. Ever since FDR, it spends, then taxes. Either way, 99% of everything the government actively does about ANYTHING is related to money.
Us conservatives think that the government is way stupid with OUR money. And that liberals want to use emotion to decide how to spend our money, rather than careful, sober, dull, and historical analysis.
So, rather than to address the Christian Steward aspect of being caerful with our money, they choose the cheap way out and created a new mantra - "morality is too dear to care about how much it costs!" - and then defined morality as government providing every one of our needs.
Liberals, I DARE YOU to list 10 common, everyday essentials that you do NOT think the government should provide for people.
I gaurantee you cannot get past 1.
Posted by: mark | January 29, 2008 7:14 PM
"I don't buy your "non partisan" position for the slightest moment. "
Nobody does. But this is just about the only place where Christians across the ideological spectrum can debate politics, so whatev?
"You know, just because you don't think you can eradicate war, poverty, or environmental degradation, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. "
I don't think anyone would argue that we shouldn't try.
"The poor are poor because they choose to be poor, so we really don't need to worry about them, because they get what they work for, which is nothing, "
I see strawmen. They're everywhere.
"You're right on the money. What kind of pathetic lives do these people live? They lurk around Sojo all day just waiting for another posted article or video to attack. "
And you wait in the bushes to counterattack.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 29, 2008 9:40 PM
Posted by: carl copas | January 29, 2008 5:09 PM
(you're also often wrong but that's another story *smile*).
LOL - thanks for the chuckle - they are hard to come by these days. You have never offended me and I have enjoyed reading your posts. Spending a lot of time online looking for a job as mine is being terminated at the school district.
Blessings on you my friend - from the wrong guy.
.
Posted by: moderatelad | January 29, 2008 9:51 PM
What kind of pathetic lives do these people live? They lurk around Sojo all day...
I know! Makes me wonder sometimes if some of these folks even have jobs.
Posted by: splinterlog | January 29, 2008 9:56 PM
(ps moderatelad - my comment wasn't directed at you. Good luck with the job hunt)
Posted by: splinterlog | January 29, 2008 9:58 PM
I think Mark must be a liberal troll trying to make conservatives look bad.
Please guys, no fair. Let's not argue with cardboard cutouts.
Engaging serious conservatives is obviously not a problem, but caricatures we create from our own stereotypical fantasies are.
Real conservatives have a genuine knowledge and understanding of history even if they have a differing opinion.
Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but no one's entitled to his own facts.
And how about we lose the liberal/conservative dichotomy entirely?
This fake conservatism makes it obvious how irrelevant to assessing real problems and formulating an appropriate practical response it is, and I think we all have better things to do than tilt at windmills spinning off their axis.
Hee-yaw, Rocinante!
Posted by: N.M. Rod | January 29, 2008 11:25 PM
I am 'signing off' activity on blog.
Thanks to many for listening and contributing.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 30, 2008 12:23 AM
Ah, yes. It didn't take long for the usual platitudes to emerge about fall of man, can't change the world, save souls instead, etc., with misspellings and all. Thanks Anna and Squeaky and others for articulating thoughtful and patient responses to the drivel.
Funny, I never hear conservatives say "we can't end abortion or stop the increased tolerance of homosexuality, so let's not try.">/i>
Hey, I and I, I happen to believe quite strongly in the total depravity of man, even the literal future fulfillment of John's Revelation, and in asking God to use me in saving people.
But...how does any of that conflict with caring for the poor? I have the Holy Spirit inside of me....and so my light should shine out in the darkness.
Yes, the poor will always be with us - but that doesn't negate that the Scriptures tell us to care for them. Once again, I think we Christians are supposed to be... something like....hmmm....new Creations in Christ Jesus?
And yes that is so true of those who use such arguments such as the depravity of man to oppose the government aiding the poor. Funny...they never consider the same forces at work when seeking Government legislation against all the other things they oppose.....
Posted by: Amazon Creek | January 30, 2008 1:34 AM
I know! Makes me wonder sometimes if some of these folks even have jobs. Posted by: splinterlog
Some of them don't, or have recently lost their job. Don't know if that particular person got a new job. I have been praying for him. It must be tough to be out of work.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 30, 2008 5:53 AM
Posted by: splinterlog | January 29, 2008 9:58 PM
(ps moderatelad - my comment wasn't directed at you. Good luck with the job hunt)
Never would have thought that - but I have thought about some who post on this site that they might want to look at getting a life. (LOL)
Have a great day
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 30, 2008 7:50 AM
"I know! Makes me wonder sometimes if some of these folks even have jobs. "
As someone who has a job, I find visiting blogs to condemn other people for visitng blogs to be a bit silly.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 30, 2008 7:34 PM
As someone who has a job
Well that's news to me friend! And by the way, it's sillier to be visiting blogs to condemn people, who visit blogs to condemn other people for visiting blogs...
Ok, out of respect for the fact that this is Jim's blog I'll resist the temptation engage further in this intellectually stimulating exchange and hold my peace.
Posted by: splinterlog | January 30, 2008 8:51 PM
"For you always have the poor with you" - Matthew 26:11. In other words, we cannot end poverty. But personal acts of charity to help others is something we are all called to do.
We are all called to love our neighbors and help each other out. But, in a nation built upon freedom, the government has taken over so many of these responsibilities and taxed the people heavily to turn such personal acts of charity into paid careers.
After Hurricane Katrina, some people finally got it, "We can't depend on the government anymore," some said on TV. The statement alone suggests we turn to the government in our time of need, rather than God or communities.
Who should depend on a government above these options? The statement alone suggests we live in a nation where the government has enslaved the people. People fail to consider the fact that they might be part of the solution, and passively await government help.
People are awakening slowly to the foundations of this nation. As the government scales back services, people are asking what they can do for their country. Who would ever imagine that President Bush would do such a good job of getting people to react to the message of JFK? I just hope the counter-surge of people frustrated with an ineffective government don't suddenly shift even more power and control to the government. Oh to live in the days before the 1930's, when the government merely created a framework for commerce and rules & enforcement of justice.
A century ago, America accomplished amazing things by the people and for the people. When San Francisco was destroyed in 1906, the federal government didn't even consider helping; it wasn't their job. Today, we would assume such a city would disappear as a ghost town without federal money to rebuild. But people pulled together and it stands as a major city today.
Posted by: Jim Burke | February 16, 2008 10:13 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?