There never has been a Christian nation

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Good on Utah, but what they are doing seems to go against what mainstream Christians are fighting for today in America, which is pretty much the opposite of what Jesus wanted.

I was under the impression that Christians have always helped the poor and down-trodden. Care to explain?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I can hear it now: "They're rewarding laziness! All those homeless people will do is take advantage of the help!"

I guarantee you any homeless person would kill to have a job, but since they don't have a home they can't wash, since they can't wash and don't have any kind of nice clothes they have no chance of impressing someone in an interview if they even get that far.

Giving these people a place to live and clean up is a stepping stone to them getting a job and providing for themselves eventually. Some people (Christians in the context of this thread, the conservative right, highly religious) would rather leave them to fend for themselves instead of giving them a hand.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

How about this? You decide what you post and I'll decide what I post. Okee dokee?

You did decide what to post. That's why I'm calling you on it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You were under the wrong impression then. This isn't about every Christian, it's about the religious/conservative right wing political arm who claim to stand for Christian values when they try to deny help to those who are in need. At least for the most part they do.

And no, this statement isn't just limited to Christians, it applies to many different types of people.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm actually hoping, since this program has been in place in Utah since 2005, that other states will see the financial benefit and decide to participate in the program to save the state money. Win, win.

I was homeless once. I know how hard it it just to line up and go on an interview!

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You were under the wrong impression then. This isn't about every Christian, it's about the religious/conservative right wing political arm who claim to stand for Christian values when they try to deny help to those who are in need. At least for the most part they do.

According to this report by philanthropy.com, you're quite wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is the case.

How States Compare

If you can provide a contrary source for your claim, it would be much appreciated. But if that source is the recesses of your own mind, I'll pass.

Given that according to the World Giving Index, United States is tied for number 1 in the entire world, that would make American conservatives the most generous people on the planet. Am I wrong here?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's fantastic. I don't really see what it has to do with Christianity, though. It was the government that did this.

I don't know, I didn't realise I'd be advocating socialism.
I'm ready to bail out of every humanitarian thought I've
ever had now. Naaaaah, what may seem like socialism
under a democracy is still democracy. Even if it has to
barrow from socialism for humanitarian reasons. No?

I was homeless once. I know how hard it it just to line up and go on an interview!

I been there to but kinda by my own choosing. Mostly going from
house to house and crash'n on couches tho. I never went without
to much. And it was over as soon as I wanted it to be. Mostly just
partying to hard.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your link says that states who vote Republican are the most giving but not all Republicans are conservative or Christian. Utah, the most giving state, is predominately Mormon. I don't think the link is indicative of extreme right Conservative Republicans in general.

a reply to: randyvs

I read about Utah's homeless program a couple of years ago and I think their success has more to do with sincerity of motive than it does religious faith or political alliances.

Usually, we see states & cities build "public housing" in huge "project" style communities. Then they fill them up with the poor and/or homeless and chalk it up as problem solved.

On top of that, they usually utilize this opportunity to segregate the poor away from the more affluent. It's like their entire motive is driven by an "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy.

Then they can't figure out why, (in five or ten yrs. time) the new housing they just built is already trashed out and infiltrated with drugs & gangs.

In Utah, it's apparent that their motive is truly driven by a desire to actually help these people rise up out of poverty and return to being productive members of society.

That's why their program includes psychological counseling, employment counseling, job search assistance and interview training along with a host of other assistance programs. It's also why their program is such a success.

You only get out of something, what you're willing to put into to it.

a reply to: Flatfish

I read about Utah's homeless program a couple of years ago and I think their success has more to do with sincerity of motive than it does religious faith or political alliances.

Ok and my shoes aren't cemented in the idea that faith in
Christ is guiding Utahs policies. As you can tell in the OP.
So do you think that part of the story should just be eye
rolled. Or if people are oblivious, should they be at least
made aware?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Flatfish

I read about Utah's homeless program a couple of years ago and I think their success has more to do with sincerity of motive than it does religious faith or political alliances.

Ok and my shoes aren't cemented in the idea that faith in
Christ is guiding Utahs policies. As you can tell in the OP.
So do you think that part of the story should just be eye
rolled. Or if people are oblivious, should they be at least
made aware?

Most definitely!

When something like this is proven to actually work, everyone should take notice regardless of where it's happening.

The same philosophy could also be applied to nationalized universal healthcare.

When something produces better outcomes while simultaneously saving money, it should never be ignored.

a reply to: randyvs

I don't know, I didn't realise I'd be advocating socialism. I'm ready to bail out of every humanitarian thought I've ever had now. Naaaaah, what may seem like socialism under a democracy is still democracy. Even if it has to barrow from socialism for humanitarian reasons. No?

I love this - I'm not even going to bother with why

:-)

Nice story - you managed to brighten my day

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your link says that states who vote Republican are the most giving but not all Republicans are conservative or Christian. Utah, the most giving state, is predominately Mormon. I don't think the link is indicative of extreme right Conservative Republicans in general.

They count paying tithes (required for all Mormons) and other church giving as "philanthropy."

The best way to lie is to tell the truth.

a reply to: randyvs

Most of the early Christian communities did not believe in personal property and shared all resources communally.

Had something to do with the whole "be in the world but not of the world" thingy.

biblestudying.net - "Communal Property"

Contrast that modern church picture to the first-century Christians, or even to the shared finances of Jesus and his disciples. In the New Testament, we find statements like "now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality" (2 Corinthians 8:13-15). To modern western ears, these words sound more like "Marxist communist propaganda" than the first and genuine form of Christianity.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your link says that states who vote Republican are the most giving but not all Republicans are conservative or Christian. Utah, the most giving state, is predominately Mormon. I don't think the link is indicative of extreme right Conservative Republicans in general.

First it was the right, now it's the extreme right. You anti-right folks are pretty deceptive about your language.

No, the KKK probably don't donate much of their income. You're right.

So, take a lesson all, when there are no actual or factual points to be made, one should critique word choice ...

Not that words (and the meaning of words) aren't actually important, sometimes ... like the lie that religiously-enforced "giving" counts as charity (or philanthropy).

Tithing settlement is the name of a formalized series of meetings held at local congregations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). During tithing settlement, each member of the church is individually interviewed by the bishop or branch president of the congregation and asked to declare whether he or she has paid a full tithe to the church, which is defined as ten per cent of the member's income. Tithing settlement meetings are held in November and December.

Tithing "Settlement" (Wikipedia)

Tithing is an important test of our personal righteousness. President Joseph F. Smith (1838–1918) said: “By this principle it shall be known who is for the kingdom of God and who is against it. … By it shall be known whether we are faithful or unfaithful.”

"Why Tithing Settlement?" LDS.ORG

a reply to: johnb

There are a lot of cheaper option solutions out there that are Socialist in nature, but capitalists reject them anyways because SOCIALISM

a reply to: randyvs

One hardly needs to be a Christian to care about your fellow man and seek solutions to todays social issues.

Many Atheists, Agnostics and Theists of other beliefs would advocate Social Housing as a possible solution to homelessness.

As for there never being a 'Christian nation' I would put it to you that most European nations and indeed 'Western' nations are built upon Christian ideals and principles.
The fact that our governments / establishment have twisted and corrupted things to further their own agenda's is another discussion altogether.

a reply to: Revolution9

Well England and Ethiopia had a good crack at it. What about the Vatican State (smallest state in the world)? The King or Queen of England was "defender of the faith".

Queen Elizabeth II still has 'Defender of the Faith' as one of her titles.

But a minor point of order - There is no such thing as King or Queen of England, it is the Queen of The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland of which England is but one constituent part. Its a bit like calling your President the President of Washington D.C.

After The English Civil War The Puritans gained significant political power.
They strove to rid the UK of any vestiges of Roman Catholicism and imposed a particularly dour, miserable, and intolerant interpretation of Christianity upon the people.

It was a 'Christian nation' regardless of one's own personal opinion.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hope you know that you are endorsing socialism here.

Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of The New Testament and political ideology must surely recognise numerous socialist elements to Jesus's teachings.

Christian principles? Can someone show a State that "turns the other cheek when attacked" that "loves others as they love themselves" or "gives all that they have to the poor."

Low-hanging Fruit

Prior to 1707, there certainly was a King (or Queen) of England. Acts of Union - Wikipedia

"Defender of the Faith" was awarded in 1521 to the English monarch Henry VII. Fidei defensor. A bit ironically, Henry also famously separated the English Church from the Roman Catholics a few years later.

1707-1521 = 186 years in which the English monarch was called Defender of the Faith.

a reply to: Freeborn

One hardly needs to be a Christian to care about your fellow man and seek solutions to todays social issues.

Of course my long time fellow member, I do agree.
Always good to see you around Free!