Conservative Christian leader, Ralph Reed, spoke on video about how liberties are taken away when the government helps people:
“The sad thing is that we as a nation have lost our way and we began to lose sight of the wisdom of the Constitution and the Declaration, we began to ask government to do more than it should do to meet every need; to take care of every hurting person; to set up a huge welfare state that meets every need we have; to have entitlement programs to take care of the poor, the underclass, senior citizens, and others.
Those are all good objectives. The problem is when we ask the government to do more then what it is specifically charged to do at the federal level in the Constitution, then we have the danger of our liberties being taken away. And that is exactly what has happened.”
I’ll admit, I’m no Biblical scholar, but it seems that the Bible looks fondly upon giving to the poor.
Deuteronomy 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
I don’t think the Bible looks too highly on greed either.
Psalm 10:3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.
Good grief, doesn’t anyone remember Ralph Reed’s history? It’s long, crude and filled with evidence of political corruption, with the worst, most documented evidence being his tight affiliation with Jack Abramoff. Abramoff went to prison and Reed should have been in the next cell. The wikipedia article on him is fairly thorough. Here’s the URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_E._Reed,_Jr.
If it doesn’t come through just search on
wikipedia for Ralph E. Reed, Jr.
hmmm… it’s interesting to me… I’m all for the government helping the poor but essentially when we do ask for the government to do all of this and then say we want less taxation aren’t we setting ourselves up for failure? The more we ask of the government the more we SHOULD have to give. The government doesn’t pull resources out of thin air, we are it’s resource, so essentially SOME liberties are lost. Federal programs can take away choice as small business may have difficulty competing and what we spend our money on/ how we spend it is infringed upon by higher taxes. If not then we create a deficit no? o wait, we already have that so maybe we are getting the help we want without becoming the resources we should be.
again, I am actually all for the government helping the poor, I’m actually not for the costly war we have engaged upon(which I understand plays a part in the deficit we are currently working on), I believe God does want his followers to give, but I have to question short responses to short statements without thought. I don’t know this guy or his ministry the only thing I will say about him is simply he should not use the podium of the church to make political statements. God cared more about individual hearts than he did about us trying to be a political force all through scripture.
The government is not an isolated entity. WE are the government. The government is us. It’s written into the Constitution that the government sees to the welfare of the people. I am curious, though, how do you define liberty? What affects small businesses far more than taxes is lack of customers. By having fewer people in poverty, we create more customers. We create more people who have the ability to make better lives for themselves. We can help bring back the middle class, which is good for all small businesses.
hey, well, we will have to agree to disagree there. The government was created by the people for the people but is not necessarily “the people”. This is why “the people(constituants)” have representatives in the government. We can play an active role in the governance of things but I see the government as the elected officials and specific seats filled by them with their delegated duties.
In regards to liberties, how I define it for myself and what I was saying above are actually two different things. I said “some” see it this way- which would be to say, some believe that taxes in general from the government infringe upon their liberty to spend every dollar they earn in the way I they want to, be it on a boat or donating to a homeless shelter. The best example I can think of right now in regards to business feeling threatened would be the health care stuff that came up. People were afraid that they would loose choice of who they would like their provider to be in the midst of this and companies already in the insurance game(though not little nor amazing by any means) were afraid they might not be able to compete price wise with what the government would be able to offer. I’m not arguing for for against this in any way here, that is not my point, i’m simply stating that this is a perspective held by some. So for that guy to make that short statement wasn’t entirely unfounded or demonic or crazy. It might not have been bright but he is not alone. I think people should try and understand where people are coming from before they take a portion of what they said and throw them under a bus.
Again, what I disagree with is that he used the pulpit to say what he said. That irritates me. Because there will be those who as surely as those willing to attack this guy without first thought will also follow him without a thought simply because he is a minister and that is abuse of power in my book.
I agree with you that having fewer people in poverty will create more customer and help “bring back the middle class.” However, I don’t know if more money and more money and more money through CURRENT government funded programs to help the poor is doing this trick. Meeting merely the basic needs doesn’t build anyone up, which is why all the rage in washington about how to create jobs.
Mel, I concur that Mr. Reed (who I had first become familiar with…in the secular sense…during the “dub-ya” days), should not (and he obviously has by the documented postings/transcriptions he has made) be voicing even a hint of political “beliefs” or “positions” as he might think they relate to political doctrine (or ACTION…). I work with numerous hard-working and dedicated employees and volunteers of Habitat for Humanity, and they do a very true and respectable job of avoiding propoganda; they promote the beliefs they have in Christianity but, they relate them to the true Christian values that made that religion popular and prominent.
Okay, Reid may well be demonic, or he may just be a psychopath… but the lighting and setup in that TIME cover are just about as blatant an abuse of the photographic process as has ever appeared in print. (Not that I don’t agree, but dammit there are still supposed to be SOME journalistic standards out there…)
Um, pardon me, but presenting that man as a questionably demonic psychopath seems to indicate a fairly high level of journalistic standards, at least to me. We could do with more of that kind of accuracy in the news these days.
How soon we forget.
I remember when Ralph Reed actually had to disappear from public for a while after being exposed for being just another corrupt politician.
“… the first major dent in Reed’s carefully cultivated image came with the disclosure in the summer of 2004 that his public relations and lobbying companies had received at least $4.2 million from Abramoff to mobilize Christian voters to fight Indian casinos competing with Abramoff’s casino clients.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/15/AR2006011500915.html
Typical talks the talk but don’t walk the walk. Look at his surroundings. The cost of his chair could have fed a family. He is not a true man of God. His suit, ect…he is into material possessions, he should be glad he can raid the church money while the Government is picking up the tab on his flock.
So how is it more ethical to have bailed-out banks and huge corporations, in effect putting them on welfare?
Is it just me, or does he look like Damien from the Omen III?
Yep!!!