Don’t dis them that brung ya to the dance

If you are against Christianity, yet care about children, charity, humanity, love, the old, the homeless, and the sick, why?

Secularists, in whatever form, anti-traditionalists, atheists, communists, statists, pagans, all claim to be charitable, care about the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill and the rest, at the same time saying hateful things about Christians. I’ve been reading quite a bit lately about the ancient world, especially about the ancient Mediterranean; their beliefs and behaviors.

In the pagan world infanticide, murder, slavery, letting the sick, poor, old people and children just die because of they were of no value or use, was the way of philosophy and life. Women had fewer rights than male slaves.

We in the West have the opposite view and practices. It all began because of what Jesus taught. Jesus Christ said to let the children come to Him, “Jesus took children in his arms and blessed them. ‘Let the children come to me; do not hinder them.’ . . . And He took them in His arms and blessed them, laying His hands on them.”   Even the Disciples were against this. Children at that time were seen as a burden, another mouth to feed. Girl babies were often left to die or outright killed right after birth, and any baby not seen as fully healthy was killed. Many were abandoned. As a result, over the centuries, abandoned children were taken care of by Christians. Christians created orphanages or cared for them in their own homes (precursor of the foster care system) rather than buy into the notion that children were of no value. Those against Christianity will point out all the failings of orphanages and foster care. I can only suppose then they approve of leaving abandoned children to die.

Leaving children to die, not seeing the worth and sanctity of human life extended to all people. Life had no value. Murder was acceptable. Infanticide was acceptable. Abortion (as it is now) was acceptable; thousands were slaughtered in the arenas of the Roman Empire, and human sacrifice was acceptable all over the world. Jesus taught all life was sacred. This was antithetical to the pagan beliefs of the time. Secularists and atheists claim to care for people. This is a Christian belief. Secularists and atheists being true to their rejection of Christianity, to be true to their beliefs, would advocate for murder, infanticide and human sacrifice.

Before Christianity marriage was for political and child bearing reasons. Men wanted an heir, and women’s purpose was to have babies. They were baby factories with no rights. Unmarried women were often, if not usually, prostitutes. Temples were glorified brothels filled with prostitutes. Jesus had many women followers, cared and ministered to them against the norms of His society. Jesus had women spread the news of His Resurrection. The early church met primarily in homes, usually run by women. In that society, such things were just not allowed. Women weren’t even allowed to speak in public, but in Christian services they were. Are atheists and secularists for the abuse of women, forcing them to be silent, forcing them into prostitution?

Marriage was not between equals in pagan society as it is now. Based on Jesus’ teachings, the Apostle Paul wrote extensively about the equality of women in marriage, that men should love and listen to their women, should share equally in the marriage. Divorce then was a one way street. The man could just throw his wife out on the street with no possessions or money; that was divorce. A husband could commit adultery as long as it wasn’t with another man’s wife. Not out of any concern for the wife, but because the wife was property, and adultery was using (stealing) another man’s property. Plus there were plenty of prostitutes around, so it was just insulting to use another’s wife.

Slavery was the social norm of the day. It was until the 19^th century. It was Christians, using the teachings of Apostle Paul and Jesus that put into practice the notion that we are all created in God’s image, so all equal before Him, and so to each other. In pagan times one was free man or slave (or woman). It was Christians that fought to free slaves all over the world. Do atheists and secularists endorse slavery, or embrace the Christian belief and practice that men are equal and slavery is evil.

There was no such thing as charity and compassion. There was no caring for the sick, poor, or homeless. If one were in such a condition, it was punishment from the gods. Based on Jesus’ teaching, Apostle Paul said, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others”. At that time looking after others was thought of as useless and a waste. The thinking of the time was that the poor and sick should be left to die if they can’t work. They weren’t worthy of help. Jesus showed compassion for the sick and poor. If atheists and secularists so reject Christianity, then they reject the notion of caring for the sick and poor, like those before Christianity did.

There were not charitable organizations before Christianity introduced them. There wasn’t any charity at all. Jesus said, “Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” An absolute contradiction to the mores of the time. Rejecting the teachings of Christianity, would secularists and atheists reject charities for the sick or the homeless, the poor?

Part of caring for the sick was the creation of hospitals, that didn’t exist in pagan times. Atheists and secularists accept this as just a part of modern society. Schools, the idea that everyone, even women, should be taught, regardless of class or ethnicity, was a Christian development and practice. Before Jesus Christ, education was only for the sons of free men. There was of course push back against this, even among Christians, but the idea became the reality we have today.

Art, music, architecture, literature all benefitted and improved as a result of Christianity. That’s a whole other posting. My point here is atheists and secularists all embrace, practice and benefit from the beliefs and sacrifices of Christians. Maybe they should reconsider their wholesale attack on Christianity since it is what gives them their own sense of humanity, care, compassion and love. Such things did not exist before Jesus Christ. Don’t dis them that brung ya to the dance.

Taking From the Suffering

Taking from Charity, giving to themselves. One can’t expect Statists to understand the art and sacrifice of giving. They only understand taking, for themselves and those that support them. For the 2010 budget Obama tried to reduce the deduction for charitable giving. It didn’t pass, but isn’t off the table for those that see any income as rightfully theirs, even if they didn’t earn it.

After that failure, the test to take money from charitable organizations was tried in California, and was stopped; but that resulted in a shakedown, which is just as good for them. Gets them the money they want while they try and fashion other legislation to shake down charity and philanthropic organizations. The Bill they tried passing (and what Federal Statist legislators are taking a serious look at), would require these kinds of organizations to publish the race, gender and sexual orientation of leaders, trustees, board members, and most others involved in a charitable endeavor.

What is at stake here for Statists (primarily Democrats) is about $300 billion a year given in charity they can’t get to. It’s not good enough the money is going to help people dying of cancer, or AIDS, or suffering from epilepsy, or Downs Syndrome. Pick your cause or disease, and what you want to give to help these people; the Statists want a portion of the money, and the rest to be directed by them to the groups they say should get the remainder (their constituents).

The nearly passed California legislation (the American Petri dish of bad political ideas) would have required the money not confiscated by the government to be directed toward minorities, low income communities, and whatever targeted group Statists want to further their own ends. There was a paper, “Criteria for Philanthropy at It’s Best”, published by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. It wants philanthropic organizations have 25% of their donations be spent on “advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity, and justice in our society.” I think spending that 25% on people actually suffering is much better. They also want to spend "at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups". The lie here, exposed by The Philanthropic Collaborative, is that "two out of every three dollars of all health grants made by foundations benefit low-income and minority communities." Statists want 75% of money donated to charity to be spent by them, not going to where the donors giving the money want it to go.

Statists will take money from the suffering to meet their own ends.

Statists (Democrats) don’t believe these institutions of help should have the freedom to decide which suffering people they want to reach out to and comfort. CongressDaily (February 2010): "Senate aides are quietly exploring ways to tax the massive wealth tucked away in charitable foundations, which backers say could serve the twin goals of raising revenue for an estate tax solution and triggering overdue reforms in the nonprofit sector."

The shakedown part of this was that in lieu of passing the legislation, were nine of the largest philanthropic organizations in California promised to give $30 million to “minority led, community base groups”. Like any black mail, the blackmailer, Statists, will be back to get more; that strategy may be even more effective than legislation.

Statists (Democrats) are willing to steal 75% of donated money, and regulate people that give to the suffering, to further their own socio-economic, political agenda.

Who do you want your charity money to go to, a millionaire politician and his overpaid staff and bureaucrats, or the little girl or boy suffering from cancer?

Liberal Compassion

Liberals are big on compassion. They say it's what motivates. Taking care of the masses.

In the name of compassion we have a lenient justice system. Thousands of rapists, pedophiles and murderers are let loose on our streets every year. Maurice Clemmons just the latest example. How compassionate is it to endanger and strike fear into ordinary citizens? Mike Huckabee BTW let out over a thousand thugs during his governorship. How compassionate is it that citizens don't feel safe on their own streets?

Liberals take about half of each working citizen's income in the form of fees and taxes. How compassionate is it to reduce working citizens' income (about half when said and done) so much they have to struggle to maintain their own lives?

Liberals lowered the deduction on charitable giving. How compassionate is it punish givers? How is it that this shows compassion to the receivers of charity?

Liberals have reduced education to indoctrination, so kids come out of school lacking knowledge and skills. How compassionate is it not prepare our children for life?

The war on poverty has cost trillions and destroyed millions of families. How is it compassionate making families fail?

I submit Liberals are putting a good name on evil behavior, and I pray enough citizens keep pushing back against Statists, knowing that families work, people keeping their earnings works, keeping bad people in jail works, that charity works.

Obama Forgot to Spread His Own Wealth

Even when making more than $250,000, he gave away less than 1 percent to charity until he became a millionaire.

Thinking about Barack Obama's impromptu lecture to Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher about his plans to "spread the wealth", I wondered whether Obama was a practitioner of his own "spread the wealth" principles when he had the opportunity to do so, or whether he was the cheap political opportunist and redistributor of the wealth of others that he appeared to be.

Looking at Obama's charitable giving in since 2000 based on his tax returns, we find that Obama consistently refused to follow his own advice to "spread the wealth" when he had the opportunity to do so. This is especially true in years when he made nearly $250,000 or more. Their contributions didn't increase until Barack Obama's extraordinary book deal helped make him a millionaire and Michelle Obama received a nearly $200,000 raise in May 2005 when she assumed a new position with her employer as vice president of "community and external affairs".

In fact, Obama gave substantially less than the average family making more than $150,000, which averages giving of 2.2 percent of total income according to University of George Professor Russell James.

By comparison, John McCain gave more than one-quarter of his income in 2006 and 2007 (28.6 and 27.3 percent respectively). And according to the New York Observer, since 1998, he has donated royalties on his books totaling more than $1.8 million.

When Barack and Michelle Obama could voluntarily give more of their own income and had the means well beyond most Americans to do so, they refused. In the event that Barack Obama is elected President, however, he and his Democrat allies in Congress intend to force others to do what he couldn't do on his own.
Vote accordingly.

Patrick Poole