"Christian" Republicans Stand the NT on its Head

[Danmark]

https://thinkprogress.org/bad-theology- ... 42ef90b387
Question for debate: 'Does the Republican battle against programs to help the poor stand in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus Christ:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�
Matthew 25:41-46

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 29 by Danmark]

I would suggest that Jesus' words are for those social justice warrior Christians who virtue signal on the outside and do nothing with their own money.

My understanding is that right wing people give more.

Being taxed of our wealth is not a form of giving.

Certainly it IS a form of giving. It is so because we, as a people, tax ourselves.
Please support your claim that "right wing people give more." What we KNOW is that Christian churches give VERY little to the poor, about 3% according to the churches themselves. The rest of their budget goes to themselves.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/4/10/201158/-
The churches are more like social clubs, the Elks, Lions Club, The Shriners. . . except some social clubs are more generous.

[Danmark]

None of your unsupported personal references and insults are supported by documentation.

• The point is not that fry cooks and janitors are "just are valuable as..." others. The point is that janitors and fry cooks deserve a living wage. As our neighbors, brothers, and sisters they ARE just as valuable as anyone else. The amoral ideology you are defending says that workers deserve nothing more than what the 'free' market provides, even if that wage is insufficient to feed them or support their families no matter how hard they work. The obscenity of this amoral 18th Century philosophy is that if the supposed 'free' market rewards the janitor with 15 cents an hour, then that is what he 'deserves' despite that fact those are starvation wages.

'Sigh. You know all the stuff you're regurgitating has been refuted and debunked right?'[/list] Every educated person knows that capitalism has alleviated poverty and brought affluence to the masses far more so than any other economic system has. Every educated person knows that controlled economies have been cesspools of poverty and human misery.

What's ironic is that setting high minimum wages actually increases poverty, so all this stuff you keep saying about helping the poor is meritless since you're want to implement policies that will make the poor worse off.

I doubt you will even address this point head on since it completely destroys the premise of your thread.

"Sigh. You know all the stuff you're regurgitating has been refuted and debunked right?"

You are making a, along with false assumptions, including the false assumption I attacked 'capitalism.'Capitalism is wonderful, as PART of an economic system has indeed brought wealth to the world. Naked, unbridled and unregulated capitalism has brought poverty and injustice to billions. As a student of economics you should understand we have a mixed economy. A student of history knows what has happened when government fails to regulate capitalistic greed sufficiently. To thrive, an economy needs the right mix of free enterprise and the socialism a socialist democracy provides.

It is no coincidence that the best countries for business have a greater mix of socialism than the U. S., which doesn't even make the top 20.
https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-f ... ab:overall

[Danmark]

Your understanding is wrong. 'The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.'
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31 ... s-20140331
So, if liberals and conservatives are roughly equal in their private giving, we are left with the fact that conservatives are steadfast in resisting public giving, while liberals support public giving to the poor.

[Danmark]

My understanding is that right wing people give more.

Your understanding is wrong. 'The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.'
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31 ... s-20140331
So, if liberals and conservatives are roughly equal in their private giving, we are left with the fact that conservatives are steadfast in resisting public giving, while liberals support public giving to the poor. In other words, since there is no difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of private assistance to the poor, the only place we see a difference is in the way they vote regarding public giving.