Thanks for the suggestion, Spotter. I started in on “God’s Politics” right after I finished “Whistling Past Dixie.” Certainly the Bible has much to say about the poor, and how we should treat them. In every instance I have found, it is a burden laid on us as individuals to care for the poor. The government is admonished not to oppress the poor. I have not finished the book yet, but so far Wallis has not cited any verses to the contrary.

I also disagree strongly with his interpretation of Jesus’ words, “For you will always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me.” (Mark 14:7) Aside from the fact that I cannot find that particular translation in any of the twenty at biblegateway.com, Wallis says that we misuse that verse to be an excuse:

“The poor you will always have with you” gets translated into “There is nothing we can do about poverty, and the poor will always be there, so why bother?”

This is, of course, a flawed interpretation. In fact, poverty has been practically eliminated in the United States. Our “poverty line” for a family of four is $21,200, or $14.51 per person per day (higher for individuals). The World Bank defines “moderate poverty” as living on less that $2 per day. Seven times that is “poverty”? Uh, no.

That does not absolve us of our duty to the poor, howsoever they may be classified, but it might guide our priorities.

Further on in the same paragraph, Wallis says, “Wealthy Christians talk about the poor but have no friends who are poor but have no friends who are poor. So they merely speculate on the reasons for their condition, often placing the blame on the poor themselves.”

Yes, many people are poor as a result of their own poor choices. That is also irrelevant. Jesus did not tell us to succor only the deserving poor, as He did he tell us to visit only those prisoners who are locked up unjustly. But it might help if we do not just succor the poor, but instruct them in making right choices that will help them out of poverty.

Wallis also has the whole concept of the Jubilee wrong. It was not to be a “redistribution” of the land and wealth every 50th year, but a returning of family land that was temporarily purchased. The price was to be scaled according to how many years remained until the Jubilee. The same went for the price of Israelite slaves. However, houses inside walled cities were sold permanently, and were not to be returned in the Jubilee Year. (Nor were non-Israelite slaves to be freed in the Jubilee.)

Along with the dearth of Bible verses, there are many logical fallacies in Wallis’ book, which I am sure that Vivian will not want me to recount here. Perhaps we could implore her to write a review of “God’s Politics,” and we could discuss them there. I’d also love for her to take a shot at Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics.” That would be fun.

Thomas F. Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, said that it makes sense for Obama to invest some of his considerable resources in the South to force McCain to defend it, but that he sees little hope of victories there.

The story is here.

Thomas F. Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, said that it makes sense for Obama to invest some of his considerable resources in the South to force McCain to defend it….

This is direct opposition to his own words (p.276) that

[It is a] common fallacy [to invest] in the South or other red states during the presidential election… [to] “keep the Republicans honest.” Forcing the GOP to waste resources defending its home turf, goes the logic, thereby allows Democrats to be more competitive in the swing states. This sounds nice. However, basic laws of mathematics prove it to be logically false and likely to have the inverse effect….

15%.

Excuse me if I can’t think of 49 better places the Democrats should be trying to win votes.

If the government would get out of the marriage business altogether, then I would not care one way or the other.

>Right, but not necessarily a born child’s life, or health, or well-being.

Perhaps I should have been more specific — that it is the job of the government to punish those who infringe on our rights. (The Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT the government’s job to actually protect us, only to punish those who do us harm. The “protection” comes in the form of deterrence via that punishment.) It is not the governments job to give us anything, but to punish those who take from us. For example, while we have the right to keep and bear arms, it is not the government’s job to buy you a gun if you cannot afford one, but it is the government’s job to punish someone who steals your gun.

“the US model seems to be – more and more – well, only people that I can identify with deserve help…”

That explains why, when there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world, it is the United States that sends the most aid. Do you actually have any evidence that most private charity “breaks down along racial lines rather clearly in the South”?

“…so let’s take the approach that government should be starved… and lets use churches (who have an agenda well beyond just providing assistance) to take care of the problems.”

Private charity goes to many places besides churches (and only a small portion of money given to churches actually goes to charity). Arthur Brooks, who wrote Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, said

People who attend a house of worship every week are 25 percentage points more likely to give to charity each year than people who never go to church, and give away about four times as much money. And this is not just a question of religious people giving to their churches, as meritorious as that might be: They also give and volunteer significantly more to explicitly nonreligious causes and charities.

“And [using the churches is] simply not a viable model.”

You are right. There are many other charities besides churches. Those of us who believe that it is our job to feed the poor and lift the downtrodden contribute to other charities, too, and they are far more efficient than the government is.

Rutherford

Right, but not necessarily a born child’s life, or health, or well-being.

While you’re catching up on your reading, Mouse, please be sure to look at Jim Wallis’ discussion of a “Bible full of holes” very carefully. It answers your question about whose responsibility it is to care for the poor, better than any other discussion I’ve ever seen.

After Hurricane Katrina, some Europeans I know wrote to me to ask two questions: How could any catastrophe, even one of this magnitude, leave the United States Government so paralyzed? and How can the response of individual Americans outweigh the governments to such a great degree? They simply don’t understand charity the way we do.

You know, I hear this a lot, and I while it may be – in some technical sense – true, I think it’s used to make a point that just doesn’t hold up. It is not that Europeans are less interested in bearing their share of the burden created by social problems or natural disasters. It’s that that they (and I, honestly) see government as the *mechanism* for bearing that burden. In contrast, the US model seems to be – more and more – well, only people that I can identify with deserve help, so let’s take the approach that government should be starved (or . . . what was that, drowned in a bathtub?) and lets use churches (who have an agenda well beyond just providing assistance) to take care of the problems. And that’s simply not a viable model.

To bring it back to the book: it’s that later model – one which is strongly motivated by a desire only to help those you deem worthy (and shocker, I bet that breaks down along racial lines rather clearly in the South) – which is what forms much of the basis of the Republican dominance in the South.

Second, you ask, “some people should consider asking themselves if charity is the responsibility of the private individual, why are issues like abortion the responsibility of the state?” Answer: because it is the job of the government to protect our rights. We consider an unborn child’s life to be worthy of protection.

Anyway I don’t want to disparage religious folk. There are indeed some inconsistencies with the points of view held by some people in terms of the relationship between the church, the state (some people should consider asking themselves if charity is the responsibility of the private individual, why are issues like abortion the responsibility of the state?) but they’re largely decent people.

You’re generally right. After Hurricane Katrina, some Europeans I know wrote to me to ask two questions: How could any catastrophe, even one of this magnitude, leave the United States Government so paralyzed? and How can the response of individual Americans outweigh the governments to such a great degree? They simply don’t understand charity the way we do.

I think Americans have proven time and again — all of us, rich and poor, black and white, red state and blue state — that we’ll try and come together in extraordinary times, and even in ordinary times people are still generous. But we should also remember the old maxim that a pound of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Red Cross can only convert private donations into material goods and distribution infrastructure so fast; in the case of Hurricane Katrina, had we invested just a little bit more in emergency preparedness, had we had better leadership in place to identify the nature and scope of the problem, we could have alleviated the suffering of our fellow Americans on the Gulf Coast so much faster and possibly saved some of the lives that were lost.

This is a large part of why I’m glad charitable donations are tax deductible if you itemize your return, by the way. Yes, some of your tax money goes to the important functions of government like emergency preparedness and management, and some of it goes to culturally-important causes like the National Institute of Health or the National Endowment for the Arts. But you can also give to the Red Cross, your church’s food closet, or your local non-profit hospital and see that your contributions are spent in your own community on the sorts of programs you value. Leadership is important and I wish the leadership we had today was better, but we also need to remain the sort of country where we don’t give simply because we have to–we give because we care.

I was quoting you, Vivian, not Shaller. Even if the dig on Republican policies and “the South’s version of Christianity” was Shaller’s, not yours, by repeating it you take responsibility for it.

“And show me where anyone said it was the government’s responsibility.”

Here you go:

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (79%) say it is government’s responsibility to “take care of people who can’t take care of themselves.”

“Besides that, your little chart fails to consider to whom the contributions are given. Charitable means many things, not just donations to help the poor.”

If you look at the other link I posted, you would have read the part that, “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.” Conservatives were more likely to donate to the Salvation Army bell-ringers, and are 18% more likely to donate blood, too.

Besides that, your little chart fails to consider to whom the contributions are given. Charitable means many things, not just donations to help the poor.

The South’s version of Christianity isn’t very Christian at all; Schaller refers to Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics in which Wallis points out that there are more than 3,000 calls in the Bible to support the poor yet the South, through its support of Republican policies, ignores this. Other areas of the country embrace the Christian-based progressivism and provide Democrats “a far better opportunity to recapture the mantle of faith through their deeds, not words.”

Actually, if you look at the 2002 charitable contributions, only three of the 11 southern states were below average — Texas, Florida, and Louisiana. Of the five “deep South” states, only Louisiana was not in the top quartile. (Appendix A)

I challenge you, as a PK, to find a single Bible verse that places the burden of caring for the poor on the government. It is that misconception, I hope, that results in socialists’ consistently giving less to charity than conservatives do:

“You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away,” Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.