Charity

[Hitch]

Many posters seem to think that God does not want us to give “under force” and use this line of reasoning to oppose taxation to support activities that might be reasonably understood to be “charity”. I will now argue that fundamentally taxation is not stealing or “forced” giving, but really a practical way to implement the population’s free will based determination to engage in communal activities, including those of a charitable nature.
<o>:p</o>:p
Suppose that many people in a particular society have empathy for the plight of the poor and wish to be involved in ensuring that these poor get money. What would they do? Would they all get together every day and listen to the petitions of individual poor people and then “pass a hat”. Of course not, that is wildly impractical. Nor do people want or need to be burdened with the time-consuming task of identifying poor people and then giving them money directly. Again, wildly impractical. Besides, there may be many poor people that nobody knows about.

They would probably do what you have done Drew. Ignore what God has, for example the Salvation Army, and go on bended knee to Caesar's trough.

What they would instead do is to choose (read “elect”) some people who share their concern to do the job matching dollars with poor people for them. At this point, I probably should not need to complete the argument, but I will. To delegate this task to a set of people with the time, skill, knowledge, to determine “who should get what” is the efficient, intelligent thing to do. And it might be perfectly appropriate to pay these people to do this “wealth re-distribution” service. Let’s call this chosen set of people the “administrators”.
<o>:p</o>:p
So all the members of this society freely make a commitment to each pay, say 10%, of their income to this project. And since, of course, it is the administrators who have the job of vectoring this money to where it is most needed, the members of the society give their money to the administrators. In order to make their commitment binding, the members of the society freely consent to being “forced” to pay their share. Let me explain this key point a bit more. The members of the society are making a kind of contractual agreement with the administrators – they are saying “we want you to do the hard work of figuring out who needs what, so to help you out, we each commit to paying our 10 % share”. And in so doing, they recognize and accept that, in order to plan disbursements appropriately the administrators need certainty that people will follow through on their commitment.
<o>:p</o>:p
So everybody agrees to be legally bound to follow through on their commitment.
<o>:p</o>:p
Of course, this is precisely what happens when a government “forces” you to pay taxes to support charity. All the simple-minded rhetoric you see in this thread misses the key point – when people in a society decide to collectively help the poor, “taxation” is an efficient, practical way to implement the collective will of the people.

Tax and spend through the government is a better way to provide dollars to the poor than God's own blessed charitable organizations? You are out of your mind lefty. And your credibility has been flushed

<o>:p</o>:p
And if the collective will of the people is to help the poor, then this is decidedly a <st1>:p<st1>:placetype w:st=" border=" 0="" alt=""></st1>:placetype>kingdom of <st1>:placename w:st="on">God </st1>:placename></st1>:paction.<o>:p</o>:p

If the collective will of the people is to help the poor , say ,as it is the will of the people to eat, it hardly makes sense to hire the most expensive and least productive 'administration' to achieve the end.

But as your post shows you have purposely ignored what God has already blessed in favor of Baal.

The problem for you is the the Salvation Army never will resort to force in order to gather funds, and you want power and control, helping the 'poor' is but a means to an end.

 

[jasoncran]

This is of course, a statement intended to establish a connection between those of us who believe in taxation to help the poor and the dark image of "communism".

I am confident that (some) readers will not fall for this kind of rhetoric and will want to discuss this matter in a manner devoid of such tactics.

what then have a church? why would any go to the "church" of govt?

when war is needed, will the church cheerfully annie up? and donate all of her salary despite the command love thine enemy?
when an abortion are needed and money is short will the church dig deep and pay for sally to kill that child she doesnt want?
when the artists wants to paint a picture of christ being spit upon and urinated, will the church please dig deep?

will the church pay for a mosque being built for the poor muslims who need some place to worship?

i'm not interested in inflamming you drew, but what is the purpose of the body of christ is theirs no tithing to the local house?

 

[Mick]

In most Western countries the Government provides nearly all of the money for charitable purposes. The Governments are not interested in doling out the funds on a case by case basis, so they hand over bulk cash (tens of millions of dollars) to the various charitable organisations (secular and religious) and charge them with the task of distributing the money to the poor and the needy.

The charities hold fund-raising campaigns to get additional money from the general public, but most of their cash comes direct from the Government.

 

[Drew]

what then have a church? why would any go to the "church" of govt?

when war is needed, will the church cheerfully annie up? and donate all of her salary despite the command love thine enemy?
when an abortion are needed and money is short will the church dig deep and pay for sally to kill that child she doesnt want?
when the artists wants to paint a picture of christ being spit upon and urinated, will the church please dig deep?

will the church pay for a mosque being built for the poor muslims who need some place to worship?

i'm not interested in inflamming you drew, but what is the purpose of the body of christ is theirs no tithing to the local house?

I am glad that unlike others, you are acting in a mature fashion, disagreeing with me but not resorting to childish name-calling and demonization.

You are, in a sense, making my argument for me. It is precisely because the church does not include all of society that we need a broader "group structure" to enact the wishes of the general population.

People - even non-Christians - want to help the poor and do some of the things you mentioned. So it is entirely appropriate for people, in the society as a whole, to "get together" and create a government to implement their collective wishes.

 

[Drew]

In most Western countries the Government provides nearly all of the money for charitable purposes. The Governments are not interested in doling out the funds on a case by case basis, so they hand over bulk cash (tens of millions of dollars) to the various charitable organisations (secular and religious) and charge them with the task of distributing the money to the poor and the needy.

The charities hold fund-raising campaigns to get additional money from the general public, but most of their cash comes direct from the Government.

True enough. And this is how things should be.

 

[WIP]

I wonder if it really matters how the help gets to those in need as long as it gets there. God knows our heart. In the end what we are talking about are works and duty, both of which mean nothing toward salvation. What we do and how we live is a direct reflection of our faith and our Lord, Jesus Christ. I think we all have a pretty good idea about how things would really be if our governments didn’t get involved and provide the social support they do.
<O:p</O:p
Don’t let your right hand know what your left hand is doing and give to Caesar when he asks and then offer your cloak as well by giving in other ways such as out-of-pocket cash contributions, gifts, repairing someone’s car, fixing an appliance, helping a neighbor move some furniture, volunteering, visiting the elderly, comforting someone, being a good listener, reaching out from your favorite church….witnessing for Christ.
<O:p</O:p
“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,†saith the Lord. Matt. 25:40 KJV

 

[Hitch]

I am glad that unlike others, you are acting in a mature fashion, disagreeing with me but not resorting to childish name-calling and demonization.

You are, in a sense, making my argument for me. It is precisely because the church does not include all of society that we need a broader "group structure" to enact the wishes of the general population.

People - even non-Christians - want to help the poor and do some of the things you mentioned. So it is entirely appropriate for people, in the society as a whole, to "get together" and create a government to implement their collective wishes.

Just as appropriate as turning over the preaching of the Gospel to the government.

 

[Hitch]

I wonder if it really matters how the help gets to those in need as long as it gets there. God knows our heart.

God knows the heart, ya think it just might be possible that why charity is not biblicly a government function ?

In the end what we are talking about are works and duty, both of which mean nothing toward salvation. What we do and how we live is a direct reflection of our faith and our Lord, Jesus Christ. I think we all have a pretty good idea about how things would really be if our governments didn’t get involved and provide the social support they do.

<o>:p</o>:p
Don’t let your right hand know what your left hand is doing and give to Caesar when he asks and then offer your cloak as well by giving in other ways such as out-of-pocket cash contributions, gifts, repairing someone’s car, fixing an appliance, helping a neighbor move some furniture, volunteering, visiting the elderly, comforting someone, being a good listener, reaching out from your favorite church….witnessing for Christ.
<o>:p</o>:p
“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,” saith the Lord. Matt. 25:40 KJV

' What do you mean I didnt care for you?? I paid taxes didint I ?'

 

[Hitch]

Certainly the church should stand ,at least even with the Elks, Lions, Moose and other charitable organizations who never even attempt to place the force of law in their collection process.

 

[Mike]

Well, Drew, you've managed to take a thread off course and moved the target from Hitch's intended topic. Unless I misunderstood the brief OP, it wasn't "should we pay taxes?" To use this as a platform for liberal ideology regarding taxes is wrong. I'll just say, I might vote on local mileage proposals, but the U.S. Congress votes on tax bills. We are forced to comply with the outcome of the votes. I'm a U.S. citizen and will comply with the laws of the land providing they don't force me to sin against the Lord, but the question wasn't about paying taxes. It was about how charity would be best handled.

In response to the general thread: As with any response to the Lord, it comes down to our motivation. Charity is something every Christian should respond to and do so with a glad heart. I believe it is best not in the control of government, because government will always waste most of the financial support in needless bureaucracy AND redirect intended support to areas of personal interest to the politicians. The government should be there to defend threats to the people both foreign and domestic and not continue to reach for further control of our ability to breathe.

To ask this question on a Christian board, I believe is to ask how Christians are to respond to charity, and this is not the same response the general public would likely give. Our response to the Compassion shown us by the Lord should be to behave compassionately to those around us. Anytime this is done with any kind of grudge is of no value. I believe a willing heart is where charity should come from; not the government.

 

[Drew]

Just as appropriate as turning over the preaching of the Gospel to the government.

I am in no way suggesting that we should turn over the preaching of the gospel to the government.

 

[Drew]

Well, Drew, you've managed to take a thread off course and moved the target from Hitch's intended topic.

False. My posts are directly relevant to the OP:

In general terms should charity be free, that is to say outside government coercion, or should it be increasingly a function of government?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Unless I misunderstood the brief OP, it wasn't "should we pay taxes?" To use this as a platform for liberal ideology regarding taxes is wrong.

It is unfortunate that you, like others, stoop to the "tribalism" - being concerned with putting other people in categories like "liberal". Most unhelpful.

And my posts are directly relevant - the question as to whether taxation is a legitimate means to implement "charity" could not be more central to the OP.

I'll just say, I might vote on local mileage proposals, but the U.S. Congress votes on tax bills. We are forced to comply with the outcome of the votes. I'm a U.S. citizen and will comply with the laws of the land providing they don't force me to sin against the Lord, but the question wasn't about paying taxes. It was about how charity would be best handled.

I believe you have misunderstood the OP.

I believe it is best not in the control of government, because government will always waste most of the financial support in needless bureaucracy AND redirect intended support to areas of personal interest to the politicians. The government should be there to defend threats to the people both foreign and domestic and not continue to reach for further control of our ability to breathe.

Like others, you are ignoring my argument.

I am used to this - it seems to be the way things are done around here.

 

[Mike]

Like others, you are ignoring my argument.

I am used to this - it seems to be the way things are done around here.

The part of my post you quoted was after I had turned the focus of my response from you to the thread. It was not intended at that point to be a response to your argument, so I was not ignoring you. Drew, we are in different camps whenever the topic of distribution of wealth is discussed. I believe people should share their blessings with a thankful heart according to how they are led. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, you believe they should be subjected to dividing their blessings, even if they do not feel led to or are happy about it.

This will likely always be a point of difference in our opinions.

 

[Hitch]

I am in no way suggesting that we should turn over the preaching of the gospel to the government.

Did someone say that you did ?

 

[Hitch]

False. My posts are directly relevant to the OP:




It is unfortunate that you, like others, stoop to the "tribalism" - being concerned with putting other people in categories like "liberal". Most unhelpful.

And my posts are directly relevant - the question as to whether taxation is a legitimate means to implement "charity" could not be more central to the OP.


I believe you have misunderstood the OP.


Like others, you are ignoring my argument.

I am used to this - it seems to be the way things are done around here.

No cliche left unturned.:toofunny

 

[Hitch]

False. My posts are directly relevant to the OP:




It is unfortunate that you, like others, stoop to the "tribalism" - being concerned with putting other people in categories like "liberal". Most unhelpful.

And my posts are directly relevant - the question as to whether taxation is a legitimate means to implement "charity" could not be more central to the OP.


I believe you have misunderstood the OP.

Dont feel too bad Mike ,according to Drew I didnt get the OP iether;

I suggest your question is improperly posed as you suggest that taxation is "forced". It really is not - at least in the sense that is relevant. People vote freely to be taxed - very few people would vote not to be taxed.

And one of the reasons people vote to be taxed is that, as a society, they wish to "give to the poor". I will expand on this line of thinking in a later post .

Cute eh? :toofunny

Like others, you are ignoring my argument.

I am used to this - it seems to be the way things are done around here.

 

[Drew]

The part of my post you quoted was after I had turned the focus of my response from you to the thread. It was not intended at that point to be a response to your argument, so I was not ignoring you. Drew, we are in different camps whenever the topic of distribution of wealth is discussed. I believe people should share their blessings with a thankful heart according to how they are led. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, you believe they should be subjected to dividing their blessings, even if they do not feel led to or are happy about it.
This will likely always be a point of difference in our opinions.

I hear what you say, but it is clear that this is not a response to my argument.

If you had really understood my argument, you would realize that I am saying that people willingly enter into a "contract" with the government to pay taxes for charitable purposes. So either I did not communicate my point clearly, or you did not understand what I was saying.

 

[Drew]

It is crystal clear that an argument as to how taxation is not really forced or coercive in nature is directly relevant to the OP:

<!-- google_ad_section_end -->In general terms should charity be free, that is to say outside government coercion, or should it be increasingly a function of government?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

I am not sure why some posters think otherwise, assuming (and this is a perilous assumption indeed) that the posters in question want to have a serious discussion about this issue.

 

[Hitch]

It is crystal clear that an argument as to how taxation is not really forced or coercive in nature is directly relevant to the OP:

Especially an argument as factual and convincing as this one;

[Of course, this is precisely what happens when a government “forces” you to pay taxes to support charity. All the simple-minded rhetoric you see in this thread misses the key point – when people in a society decide to collectively help the poor, “taxation” is an efficient, practical way to implement the collective will of the people.




I am not sure why some posters think otherwise, assuming (and this is a perilous assumption indeed) that the posters in question want to have a serious discussion about this issue.[/QUOTE]
I havent the foggiest...

 

[Hitch]

Anyone care to guess why Drew pretends the Salvation Army, the Elks etc do not exist?

I think it relates to the real agenda of liberals the world over; control. Top down benevolent bureaucracy.(sic)