I have to say, I take issue with the wording of this last paragraph:
“At least at this time of the year they are prepared to give generously but the worry is that a system based on charity will mean that the supply of donated food will always ebb and flow,” he [Mark Winne] said. ” We may be entering one of those perfect storms where everything goes wrong but if we depend on food charity rather than ending poverty, this is what is bound to occur.”Calling it "a perfect storm" somehow implies that the hunger crisis facing Americans and those who would help them is an act of God. Make no mistake -- this is one more product of the greed and callousness of the Bush administration, whose policies have willfully created a shrinking middle class, a rise in the number of "working poor" and homeless families, a culture of rampant materialism, selfishness at the top, despair at the bottom, and no "safety net."
I think that statistics show that people with less income tend to give a greater percentage of what they have, than those with more. I have no problem with charitable giving. I honor anyone, rich or poor, who sees a responsibility greater than themselves to help others.
But I also happen to believe that a government has a responsibility to take care of its citizens (both those born here and those born elsewhere.)
The teachings of Jesus were essentially about not hurting others and taking care of the poor.
Most politicians like to bray loudly about their faith, and no one brays louder than George F.W. Bush.
I am disgusted.
11 comments:
It horrifies me that people are encouraged to shop to save our country.
For a long time I had a big, big shopping problem of my own. I could hide in my snobbery about it, as it was often books, music and or art plus travel. But it was spending what I did not have.
While I have stopped, I am facing a mountain of debt. That has caused me to look at this in a different way.
I am saddened and afraid for our nation.
Jesus did encourage people to care for the poor and disenfranchised. Almost every story in the new testament would focus on how Jesus interacted with those that his society rejected... the poor, the lame, the tax collector, the adulteress, the Samaritan. I don't think he would want us to go shopping to show our Thanksgiving, that's for sure.
And I can't imagine he'd be pushing war and no health care either.
I don't think they worship the same Jesus as you do.
I don't know what Jesus they worship. They are so twisted.
suzy, you wrote:
"No Slappz, I object to both the name calling and the twisting of every single thing that anyone else says."
YOU might object to a few chafing words, but I don't, and that includes when they are fired in my direction. It's okay. A lot of abuse has come my way, especially when at public events where people are face to face. It's truly astonishing how willing your liberal cohorts are when it comes to cursing at someone voicing some opposing views. However, that technique of persuasion never works.
You wrote:
"I guarantee that what you SAY I am saying, is not at all what I am saying."
I guarantee you that many people write comments that they themselves do not understand. Writing clear unambiguous messages is a lot tougher than most posters think. And there is no doubt that people send messages they do not intend. Moreover, there is often a subtext to messages that the writer misses completely.
You wrote:
"Debate implies some respect."
In my view, logical consistency and reliance on facts ranks much much higher.
You wrote:
"You come into comment sections and lob lemons so fast and hard that nobody can get a word in edgewise ... and this is print media!"
Your first logically inconsistent statement. I deliberately copy statements with which I disagree and then post my disagreement. That way, there's no doubt about what drives my comments.
Meanwhile, print comments, unlike spoken, firing-line, verbal debate comments, are on display for readers to review and consider at their own pace. You don't have to worry about missing an important statement when comments are posted in print form. Thus, your claim that my comments arrive "so fast and hard that nobody can get a word in edgewise" is silly.
You wrote:
"It's like Bill O. screaming "Shut up! Shut up!" when he doesn't like what a guest is saying."
Your second logically flawed statement. Few comparisons could be less accurate. I have no control over what is written on websites and no control over responses to my comments. Every media gasbag has full control over public response to his rantings.
You wrote:
"You think you are being smart, but really it is just plain mean and disrespectful, something which I cannot abide."
Here's the subtext of your sentence: you don't like my attitude, but you have no disagreement with my points, just the manner in which I present them.
YOu added:
"If you were my kindergarten student, you would soon be changing your ways"
In other words, you bully people when possible, but only when you are the biggest person in the room.
You wrote:
"... with the help of some tough love, of course."
I see. "Tough love", an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
No Slapz, I choose not to be abused by anyone. You are so good at telling everyone else what the "subtext" of their comment is. This is my blog and I get to say what your subtext is: "I'm a mean spirited, lonely guy who gets my kicks by stirring up trouble." Do not comment here again.
I have deleted the most recent comment from No Slappz. Friend, I am holding you in the Light. And I will delete any comments which I consider to be mean spirited.
Remember, if you're being targeted for right-wing harassment, you must be too close to the truth. I would take it as a compliment.
no_slappz, you wrote: "You wrote: 'I guarantee that what you SAY I am saying, is not at all what I am saying.' I guarantee you that many people write comments that they themselves do not understand. Writing clear unambiguous messages is a lot tougher than most posters think. And there is no doubt that people send messages they do not intend. Moreover, there is often a subtext to messages that the writer misses completely."
Clearly, you believe that you are the only person in the world who can accurately interpret another person's writing, even if that interpretation is contrary to the interpretation of anyone else, including the writer. If I were to say that I am opposed to capital punishment, you would probably interpret that as saying I was in favor of allowing all criminals to go free and commit any crimes without consequences of any type.
You added: "You wrote: 'Debate implies some respect.' In my view, logical consistency and reliance on facts ranks much much higher."
In your view, it can only follow that respect for another human being is unamerican and anyone treating another person respectfully should be sent to Guantanamo. Further, I must remind that you that you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts. A little research might help, and try to avoid getting all of your information from the neo-con-biased media.
You wrote: "You wrote: 'You think you are being smart, but really it is just plain mean and disrespectful, something which I cannot abide.' Here's the subtext of your sentence: you don't like my attitude, but you have no disagreement with my points, just the manner in which I present them."
Once again, here you find an idea that you seem to think is proven by the simple fact of its omission. Here's the subtext of your sentence: "I am a hoppy-toad." Remember, I didn't say it, you admitted to it by failing to state otherwise in the first place.
I hope these ideas aren't too chafing. I also hope love and happiness come your way.
Peace.
Suzy, I started writing a post around the idea of "helping each other," and how charity fits into that. It's been sitting for two weeks. Your cogent thoughts on the matter may get me going on it again.
The Neos have been very straight about their intentions to end the social contracts of The New Deal and The Great Society. How the hell they've convinced any thinking Christian to support their blatant rape of the poor is beyond me.
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
While I utterly and absolutely support charitable works, and find great joy in reaching out to help others, I also utterly and absolutely believe that government has a responsibility to help all people.
Tonight I was at a "listening session" with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. One of the citizens who spoke, spoke passionately about the Declaration of Independence and what is meant when it says ALL men are created equal. ALL. While we could debate the hypocrisy of Tom Jefferson and his cohort, the words speak loudly. ALL are created equal. It is a dream to hold on to.
Post a Comment