Why Do Those On The Right Ignore Mathew 25

[Austin]

I think the people who do not believe that helping others is something they should have to do have a legitimate argument, as odious as it may be to me. I just wish they'd be intellectually honest about it. I could respect them more if they were.

Jesus cannot be used to back up their argument. There is no amount of scripture twisting or proof-texting that can be done to make Jesus' words match up with their ideology. There is no way to square Christianity with their ideology.

I would much rather they'd say, "Look, I got mine, and the rest of everybody can go suck it. I will care about others when and if I ever want to, but listen, to me, it's all about me and mine. Anybody who doesn't have as much as I have can pretty much blame themselves."

They just need to cop to their Ayn-Rand-esque ideology (even if they don't know who she is) and own it. Selfishness and being a sucky human being are not criminal acts. So it's okay, far-rightwingers - just own it!

[0KidsAndHappy]

Even when I gave up on the whole faith thing, Matthew 25 has been something I've kept close to my heart. To me, it always summed up how people should live ... not just as Christians, but humans. I've always been one of those "just in case" types. I don't necessarily believe in anything after death, but just in case, I'll follow this part.

I remember when the Madonna concert was airing on NBC a few years ago and there was a complete brouhaha over her Live to Tell performance, where she is on the cross wearing a crown of thorns. I was lucky enough to see her on that tour and that part was probably the most moving for me because of how it ends.

It was censored and didn't air here, so people really missed out on something because of their fear.

2JvK3U2gpsQ

I still can't watch this without tearing up.

[Nothing2CHere]

I think the people who do not believe that helping others is something they should have to do have a legitimate argument, as odious as it may be to me. I just wish they'd be intellectually honest about it. I could respect them more if they were.

Jesus cannot be used to back up their argument. There is no amount of scripture twisting or proof-texting that can be done to make Jesus' words match up with their ideology. There is no way to square Christianity with their ideology.

I would much rather they'd say, "Look, I got mine, and the rest of everybody can go suck it. I will care about others when and if I ever want to, but listen, to me, it's all about me and mine. Anybody who doesn't have as much as I have can pretty much blame themselves."

They just need to cop to their Ayn-Rand-esque ideology (even if they don't know who she is) and own it. Selfishness and being a sucky human being are not criminal acts. So it's okay, far-rightwingers - just own it!

I think Stephen Colbert talked about this same thing:

[Austin]

Stephen Colbert said it way better than me :)

[She Who Laughs]

I'm a Christian and a conservative and I would consider our church to be "on the right" and as a church (and also many, many individuals) we are very involved in helping the poor and needy. We work with Salvation Army, the Community Kitchen, the local Food Pantry, the local homeless shelter, the halfway houses in town, and the pregnancy center. Besides these local groups we also help with the homeless and addicted in Poland, abandoned babies and abused women in Romania, children with HIV/AIDS in Romania, the Roma in Romania and Slovakia, paid for and built shelters for those who recently lost homes to the earthquakes in Turkey, and those are just the ones I am aware of. People in our church are constantly working toward helping the less fortunate and we frequently team up with other churches in the community to make an even bigger impact.

While I am sure there are many people and churches who don't help the poor and have some lame excuse, to make it sound like everyone on the right ignores Matthew 25 is simply not accurate.

[Austin]

I'm a Christian and a conservative and I would consider our church to be "on the right" and as a church (and also many, many individuals) we are very involved in helping the poor and needy. We work with Salvation Army, the Community Kitchen, the local Food Pantry, the local homeless shelter, the halfway houses in town, and the pregnancy center. Besides these local groups we also help with the homeless and addicted in Poland, abandoned babies and abused women in Romania, children with HIV/AIDS in Romania, the Roma in Romania and Slovakia, paid for and built shelters for those who recently lost homes to the earthquakes in Turkey, and those are just the ones I am aware of. People in our church are constantly working toward helping the less fortunate and we frequently team up with other churches in the community to make an even bigger impact.

While I am sure there are many people and churches who don't help the poor and have some lame excuse, to make it sound like everyone on the right ignores Matthew 25 is simply not accurate.

Many (most?) churches do some good, and that's great. But they have never and will never be able to fill in the gap between hunger and abject poverty for a large portion of the population. This is why the argument that the care of the poor should be left to faith organizations is so misguided.

When it is pointed out the right ignores the words of Jesus, no one is saying that people on the right don't do charity work. They're ignoring Jesus when they're fighting tooth and nail not to have to be part of this society and contribute to it for the good of all.

[0KidsAndHappy]

I think Stephen Colbert talked about this same thing:

I can't think about Colbert and religion at the same time. He makes me feel all ... defrauded.

[CynicMom]

I also lived in another state where there wasn't a safety net other than food stamps and unchurched people in the community did come to Christian churches for help. ... The Lord said the poor will always be with us.

THIS is why conservative Christians are against welfare: because without it poor people are forced to turn to CHURCHES for help! They could come to the Lord! Plus the Lord says the poor will always be with us so there's ultimately no point in trying to eradicate poverty.

Conservative churches don't like welfare because they view it as their competition.

[Angri-la]

I can't think about Colbert and religion at the same time. He makes me feel all ... defrauded.

Seriously. I couldn't even read the text for about 60 sexonds (left my Freudian slip showing). I thought I was the only one!

[chickenlady]

I was a weird Christian. The most beautiful verses to me were not the ones that describe how Christ saved me but ones like these in Mathew 25. Verses like these are part of the reason that I still have respect for Christianity.

Many years ago, I asked several people why our Independent Baptist Church never did anything to help those in poverty. You would have thought that I had asked people to eat poop. Repeatedly I was warned against putting works first. This confused me because Jesus plainly said to help the poor, love others, turn the cheek and not judge. Eventually I discovered that my fellow Christians were holding Paul's words in more regard than the founder of our faith. Being saved by grace to them, meant ignoring what Jesus commanded.

Sounds like they forgot the words of James as well, he said faith without works was dead.

James 2:14-17

" What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works, can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which be needful to the body; what doth it profit being fit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

[freealljs]

THIS is why conservative Christians are against welfare: because without it poor people are forced to turn to CHURCHES for help! They could come to the Lord! Plus the Lord says the poor will always be with us so there's ultimately no point in trying to eradicate poverty.

Conservative churches don't like welfare because they view it as their competition.

I get so tired of conservative Christians making blanket statements about how the poor are taking advantage of "the system". First, I want to tell these people, nobody wants to be poor. Nobody chooses to be poor, especially those with families. It's ludicrous to think that people take advantage of "the system" (ie, welfare) when these people know that there is a huge stigma attached.

Second, there was a time before "the system" and it was not pretty. An example: My father lived in a time before welfare as we know it, and he said it was humiliating to be a "charity case" of the local church. His family went through a rough patch after his mentally challenged sister (my beautiful aunt!) was born. The local church people treated them like dirt, even though his parents donated and gave a tithe regularly until the rough patch. My father said he would never support any politician who advocated wiping out the system, because he's seen the alternative. My father said that the system was set up because the churches (and local communities) couldn't handle taking care of all of their poor members adequately. I'm sure there's more to it, but I get this vibe from the Santorum types that they expect the poor to get help from the church or neighbors. He also told me that if the system was shut down, we would see a lot more poor people in the streets with children.

Third, these conservatives are the same people who wouldn't flinch at getting unemployment if they lose their jobs, grants to start businesses or taking severance packages if their companies provide them during layoffs. These are all handouts, and yet somehow they justify it.

(sorry if this is a bit wordy)

[CC3]

THIS is why conservative Christians are against welfare: because without it poor people are forced to turn to CHURCHES for help! They could come to the Lord! Plus the Lord says the poor will always be with us so there's ultimately no point in trying to eradicate poverty.

Conservative churches don't like welfare because they view it as their competition.

Huh??? Do you honestly think the Church thinks most people who come for help will be converted? I see why you have named yourself Cynic. A good share of the people I personally helped with groceries and clothing didn't appear grateful. Or if they were, they didn't say "thank you." I wasn't looking for gratitude; I was surprised by the lack of it. There was no agenda. No tracts given or sermons to be forced to listen to in order to get a meal. Believe me, no one got saved but if someone was wanting spiritual help, I would have been glad to do what I could. Jesus said the poor will always be with us because he knows how we think. Some people are terrible with money; some are foolish; and some have no education and don't know how to handle money when they have it; some are addicts. And then there is the recession. It's a fact whether we like it or not. And unless all Christians banded together to set up charities for the poor under one roof, I don't see us looking to take over food stamps, unemployment, housing, social security, etc. In the city I reside in, there isn't a homeless shelter so various churches that could meet state health codes for food service applied to have homeless people stay twelve hours at night each taking a different night. Even then it took more than a year to get it passed through city council and fifteen years later we still don't have a shelter because no one wants the shelter in their neighborhood. I think there are plenty of services the church provides better than the state. Welfare and food stamps aren't it. SMH

[Three and Done]

I lost whatever respect I had for Catholic Charities when they decided they'd rather stop all their adoptions services than allow icky gay people to adopt.

Valsa - as far as I can ascertain from the web, Catholic Charities does provide adoption services.

I personally do NOT agree with the Catholic Church's stance on a number of issues... BUT they were willing to help a struggling single mom in a time of need. I am quite grateful for that. ;)

[Guest Anonymous]

Not all churches are rich mega-churches with millionaire ministers and deacons. The economy has hit everybody hard, thus church donations and tithes are down. So, what do you do? Select the most needy and give to them and turn away everybody else or give a little to all who need? Plus, at some point the help needs to come in form of counseling or some other assistance to help them get back on their feet again.

Three and Done, a lot of people I know were also turned away by FEMA after the 4/27 tornadoes, despite the presidential trip to the area and promises of help.

[valsa]

Valsa - as far as I can ascertain from the web, Catholic Charities does provide adoption services.

Catholic Charities of Boston stopped offering adoption services when Mass. state law required them to not discriminate against gay couples. Illinois also passed a law giving gay couples with civil unions all the rights of married couples and sued for the right to end their contract with Catholic Charities when they refused to work with gay couples. Last I checked (a few months ago) the issue hadn't been settled yet.

It's all fine and dandy that they helped you, but that doesn't cancel out the fact they discriminate against other people and prevent the children they're supposedly advocates for from finding homes with gay couples.

[Three and Done]

Valsa - I completely agree that discrimination in any form is reprehensible, and against my personal beliefs. My sister is gay, as are many other wonderful people in my life that I have been fortunate enough to call "friend". I have known a number of same sex parents that were excellent examples of the right way to raise a child, and would have been quite happy to have them care for any of my daughters. (As a matter of fact, several of these families had my girls as overnight guests.)

My only point was that when no one else could/would help my daughters and I, they freely gave (what was to me) a fairly considerable amount of money. Do I subscribe to their views? No. Am I appreciative of the assistance they gave us? Yes.

[valsa]

Luckily, you were the "right kind" of people for them to help.

[Three and Done]

Luckily, you were the "right kind" of people for them to help.

Yes, I suppose we were. I did not have any other options. It was either accept their help, or lose the only home we've had since ours was destroyed in the flood.

[valsa]

I'm not criticising that you did what you had to for your family to survive (and frankly, I don't know how you're reading it that way either)

I'm responding to your initial comments-

We are not Catholic, but they helped us anyway... pretty amazing, if you ask me!

I love me some ebil Catholics!

[marmalade]

My husband is a Christian and a moderate Republican. For some odd reason, he is the one that is always asked for spare change and when he has money, he gives it. When I asked him if he was worried about the person wasting the money, he said that he couldn't risk that they needed it and he refused them. Honestly, I think that he is a rarity among Republican Christians.

My husband is a slightly left-leaning moderate Christian (he's starting to come around on Gay Rights, yay), and he's the first one to give a homeless person a buck. I'm a small gal and being hit up for money intimidates me, but if I have change in my pocket, I'll give it over (only in VERY public places). No way I'm opening up a purse or bookbag to expose my wallet. Even if there are no homeless people around, I'm not dumb enough to wave what amounts to a big red cape to total strangers on the street. Heck, I only use an ATM in my grocery store for cash these days (I usually take out more than cashiers have on hand..60 bucks every couple of weeks).

I'm more of the "safe than sorry" mode, but my husband has actually witnessed to a few of the homeless we've encountered (and in our area, you can pretty much trip over homeless everywhere except the highest of highbrow hill 'hoods (only because it's a long, steep hike and the shopping areas aren't that big).

That's the one drawback to having perfect climate, I guess. It could be much worse; if anyone watches the Real Housewives (a guilty pleasure), a few years back one of the OC women brought her daughter up to Berkeley and they walked by People's Park and laughed at the "bummers." These are supposedly Christian women, but they got on their high horse and I was infuriated, then and last week when I happened to catch the repeat as they built up to the season premiere. The "no bummers in the OC" was snotty and no way it's true.

[Witsec7]

no bummers in the OC

When Ronnie Reagan was governor and opened the flood gates folks were literally bussed down to Laguna Bch to sleep on the sand, its pretty obvious that the bitch in question never went to Santa Ana, or Westminster or left Fashion Island or the Balboa Bay Club.

[marmalade]

I'll never forget my Liberal Christian late-in-childhood (14) adopted mother (before her fundie stage in her 50's) telling me in 1980, two years into her fundie stage, that she could never vote for Raygun because...and I quote: "He fucked up California. Imagine what he could do with the country."

My older sisters (via said mother's first marriage) were teens during Ronnie's term as governor and I think what he did for the CA state university system handicapped them when it came to going to college. Only one of the three sisters attended any sort of college and dropped out - not because she was doing drugs, but because she couldn't find money. My mother, at the time, was with her second husband who essentially raised my sisters, but he never formally adopted them and although they lived a nice middle class lifestyle (he was into boats and they were sailing, waterskiing or fishing almost every weekend), he wasn't going to finance their education, although he could afford the inflated rates Ronnie imposed to keep the "rabble" out of the California Universities, which ultimately gave rise to the CSU system gaining

Basically, our family was screwed by Ronnie in so many ways.

[flojo]

Huh??? Do you honestly think the Church thinks most people who come for help will be converted? I see why you have named yourself Cynic. A good share of the people I personally helped with groceries and clothing didn't appear grateful. Or if they were, they didn't say "thank you." I wasn't looking for gratitude; I was surprised by the lack of it. There was no agenda. No tracts given or sermons to be forced to listen to in order to get a meal. Believe me, no one got saved but if someone was wanting spiritual help, I would have been glad to do what I could. Jesus said the poor will always be with us because he knows how we think. Some people are terrible with money; some are foolish; and some have no education and don't know how to handle money when they have it; some are addicts. And then there is the recession. It's a fact whether we like it or not. And unless all Christians banded together to set up charities for the poor under one roof, I don't see us looking to take over food stamps, unemployment, housing, social security, etc. In the city I reside in, there isn't a homeless shelter so various churches that could meet state health codes for food service applied to have homeless people stay twelve hours at night each taking a different night. Even then it took more than a year to get it passed through city council and fifteen years later we still don't have a shelter because no one wants the shelter in their neighborhood. I think there are plenty of services the church provides better than the state. Welfare and food stamps aren't it. SMH

Blaming the poor for being poor. It makes the world look much neater, and ignores the underlying complexities. Therefore makes it easy to remove social programmes.

[Guest Anonymous]

My husband is a slightly left-leaning moderate Christian (he's starting to come around on Gay Rights, yay), and he's the first one to give a homeless person a buck. I'm a small gal and being hit up for money intimidates me, but if I have change in my pocket, I'll give it over (only in VERY public places). No way I'm opening up a purse or bookbag to expose my wallet. Even if there are no homeless people around, I'm not dumb enough to wave what amounts to a big red cape to total strangers on the street. Heck, I only use an ATM in my grocery store for cash these days (I usually take out more than cashiers have on hand..60 bucks every couple of weeks).

I'm more of the "safe than sorry" mode, but my husband has actually witnessed to a few of the homeless we've encountered (and in our area, you can pretty much trip over homeless everywhere except the highest of highbrow hill 'hoods (only because it's a long, steep hike and the shopping areas aren't that big).

That's the one drawback to having perfect climate, I guess. It could be much worse; if anyone watches the Real Housewives (a guilty pleasure), a few years back one of the OC women brought her daughter up to Berkeley and they walked by People's Park and laughed at the "bummers." These are supposedly Christian women, but they got on their high horse and I was infuriated, then and last week when I happened to catch the repeat as they built up to the season premiere. The "no bummers in the OC" was snotty and no way it's true.

Sorry to be off-topic, but if there are any bank ATMs near where you live, I wouldn't use the card at a grocery store or gas station. They're too easy to fit out with scanners that glom your PIN and account number, so that money can be siphoned out of your account. There have also been cases where the clerks could also access that info from the machines, then either used the information themselves or sold it to others. Even when I use a bank ATM, I cover the PIN information while inputting it, because again, people have been ripped off by others who were watching the ATMs.

[CC3]

Blaming the poor for being poor. It makes the world look much neater, and ignores the underlying complexities. Therefore makes it easy to remove social programmes.

BYW, I am not blaming the poor for being poor (you forgot to bold the recession as a reason for poverty). What are your suggestions to help the underpriviledged?