This person incorrectly correlates the focible redistribution of income through taxes with charity.
Yes, healthcare for the poor is a noble "christian" idea. However, I'd interpret that as a call to voluntarily donate to a charity hospital or health ministry, not overpay into a poorly-managed, overprice goverment health scheme.
There was a story in the bible about a poor women who put her last two pieces of gold into the poor box at the temple. Jesus explained that this was a far greater gift, in the eyes of God, than the rich who would give a larger monetary offering that was a much smaller portion of their income/assets. Charity toward others is a christian value. I'm not sure how participation in poorly-run government schemes is. Paying taxes does not make you righteous in they eyes of God, it simply keeps you in compliance with the law.

Of course, that's just my interpretation.

Either Sherman doesn't understand Christianity or Sherman is trying to be sarcastic or Sherman is an idiot. I'm not sure which.

Depending on whom you ask, Sherman Alexie is either safely in the traditional lines of Christian thought or is a heretic.

For the former line of thought. Quite a few of the social gospel Christians support welfare state on the grounds that we are supposed to care for the poor. Both the Old and New Testaments command that we feed and shelter widows and orphans, clothe the naked and care for the sick, etc. In this view, caring for the poor is a religious obligation, and not supporting the welfare state is a sin.

Other Christians, however, think the preceding paragraph is an incorrect understanding of the scripture. The Bible says that believers--not the government--are to take care of the needy. To mix the government into charity is to mix Caesar with Christ. These Christians think that outsourcing charity to government is scripturally problematic.

I wasn't aware there was a movement of Christians who don't trust ObamaCare. However, I don't think you need to be a Christian to not trust in the ACA.

I haven't read the Bible in years, but I don't remember a passage in which Jesus said to take your neighbor's money under threat of incarceration and use it to give benefits to the poor while patting yourself on the back for being so generous.

Karl Marx, on the other hand, did advocate something along those lines.

To me, the point of Jesus' mission is understanding one's relationship to God. This includes an unconditional love of others, as depicted by the parable of The Good Samaritan. Jesus also admonished us to love our enemies. The point I take from this is that learning to view each individual as not just your neighbor but as your brother is what leads one to take action on their behalf.

There are so many people, however, who are Christly without being adherents to any religious orthodoxy. And this is as it should be, since being Christly is more natural than being orthodox.

I am no authority on Obama's character. That being said, Obama's ambitions and ideals may, in fact, be Christian. I have no idea. I only know he is monumentally incompetent as a POTUS. So, while Sherman does not, per se, make an appeal to authority for leftist economic policy, the implication seems too obvious to ignore.

I can explain it and it should be hard for bright people to get. Plenty of people will make a sacrifice if they know their neighbors will also have to make that sacrifice, thus it both amounting to more than a pennance and not hurting their relative status. This is what you libertarians don't get - people care about RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE wealth (how does Amy not know this with her wide ranging knowledge of EP?). Rules that ask sacrifices from you that your neighbor also has to make don't hurt you in what matters which is COMPARATIVE wealth and status. SO I am perfectly happy to pay taxes for stuff that I won't give to unilaterally and you don't need to be a genius to see why - I don't want to make a unilaterally sacrifice that is going to hurt me while my neighbors gain at my expense, especially when my little donation won't do shit on its own. It is lack of awareness of the basics of behavioral economics (weird for people adept at EP), that is going to put us under the economic heal of countries with some sense. Our oever-fetishization of the tiniest freedoms at the cost of social cohesion is going to do us in.

It is, as others have already notes, faux Christianity. Because, at least in the eyes of the Left, if it "helps" the poor, it's charity. Even if it is at the implied point of a gun.

In many ways, it's like the current "Duck Dynasty" brouhaha, where GLAAD is claiming Robinson is being UnChristian, merely because he listed homosexuality with other sins, in a paraphrase of what I'm told is a line from the Book of Corinthians. . .

Basically, when ANYONE claims religion as a reason someone else "should" do something, be wary. . .

Government "charity" requires using the police, courts, guns and jails of the government to take what one person has earned and give it to someone else.

You shall not steal.
You shall not covet your neighbor's property.

"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." Thomas Jefferson.

> This is what you libertarians don't get -

Hi, Brian!

Are you the Brian?

Y'know, this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/EventuallySaysBrian

Oh, now I get this tweet!

Jesus said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

And since Obama is both Caesar AND God everything belongs to him.

Glad I've got that all clear now.

(sarcasm off)

I've seen people post a Jimmy Carter along the same lines as the tweet. I then have to point out the continuing giant wad of stupid that is Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter.

That should be "Jimmy Carter quote" above.

Hubbard is right.

But Judaism and Christianity also have stories of miracles and wonder-working. The historian Ramsay MacMullen wrote an interesting book 'Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D. 100-400' where he argues that the early Christian movement didn't gain massive popularity because of Christina piety, but rather it was because of the stories of miracles circulating around the Empire during those years.

That's what Alexie is saying, maybe. It's going to take a miracle to get ObamaCare to live up to its promises. Lol.

Why don't more Christians realize that Obamacare's ambitions & ideals are overtly Christian?

Ohh. Emm. Gee. *face palm*

Let's see...Jesus, when asked if it were lawful to pay Roman taxes, said something like:

Show me the coin used to pay the tax. Whose likeness is this? Caesar, you say? then give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but render unto G*d what is G*d's.

Jesus also told his followers you take care of the sick, the poor, the hungry, not Caesar, you take care of the sick, the poor, the hungry.

Besides, it isn't charity if Big Government puts a gun to your head and offers you a choice lead or gold.

Either Sherman doesn't understand Christianity or Sherman is trying to be sarcastic or Sherman is an idiot. I'm not sure which.

They're not mutually exclusive.

In many ways, it's like the current "Duck Dynasty" brouhaha, where GLAAD is claiming Robinson is being UnChristian, merely because he listed homosexuality with other sins, in a paraphrase of what I'm told is a line from the Book of Corinthians. . . ~ Posted by: Keith Glass at December 19, 2013 9:27 AM

Brandon Ambrosino had an interesting viewpoint on the Duck Dynasty flapdoodle:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/

From Abrosino's article:

I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation, too.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizeable audience — most of whom, by the way, probably share his views — and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.

GK Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right – and he usually is – then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.

Jesus wants you to manufacture duck calls.

Oh, and to hate homos, too.

We just had a townhall meeting that my company conducted yesterday that I hosted that dealt with obamacare. I will say that the only people that seemed to think the atrocity was a decent idea were these crazies that some how said it was the "Christian" thing to do... I was not allowed to interject sense as we were conducting some polling but I don't think those people really understand the concept of Christianity. That is a pretty common problem for most Christians in my experience. Especially the set that hang on to three phrases from the bible yet insist homosexuality is the WORST SIN EVER!

Things I'd not heard of:

• That dead actor

• Alex Jones

• The Duck people

They might be going for an unprecedented quartet!

But you should check the link frequently, just to see how much shame those little weasels can withstand.

http://tinyurl.com/ObamasBigLie

In 14 hours, I'm going to paste a great response to (affirmative) response to Irj's comment of December 19, 2013 1:25 PM

Anyone care to wager that if Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty fame was a raving muslim who advocated killing teh gheys in the worst possible manner that we'd be hearing crickets from the Usual Suspects?

I have 100 quatloos right here.

Off topic sorta, but since Sherman Alexie has written modern Young Adult stories about the despair, alcoholism and violence growing up Native American in America, here's another story about a young modern-day Native American that is interesting.

As for the nonbelievers, Elsa is quick to explain that attributing Jake’s miracle survival to a future saint is in no way a discredit to the doctors who treated him.

“We know Jake would not be here if those doctors were not so fabulous,” she says. But she also notes that the doctors themselves told the Vatican interviewers they don’t know how to account for the boy’s turn of fortune.

“They stated they did everything humanly possible and that the death rate for this disease is very high. They had also made comments as to they don’t know why he survived. They, too, have stated that, yeah, it is a miracle that he has survived.”

Jesus told me that I need $800 YSL shoes.

I have already prayed for them and in a spiritual message he told me I should seek donations.

Wont y'all think of Baby Jesus this Christmas season?

In the United States doing good has come to be like patriotism a favorite device of persons with something to sell. -- H. L. Mencken
-------------------------------

I don't consider any government program charity. I consider it extortion at the point of a gun.

The liberal left thinks socialism is charity. The problem is that they don't realize what is given to them can just as easily be taken away. When you are depending on the government teat for your survival, any changes can screw you up, very quickly.

Section 8 housing: What if congress doesn't renew it?

Food stamps: What happens when the dollar goes to crap?

But Congress is more than willing to fuck the military vets with the Ryan-Murray budget. The vets have a very good goof faith lawsuit if it passes.

But I'd bet that if taxes were lowered and more encouragement of true charity, a lot of the government social programs could die. Where were they prior to Woodrow Wilson?

Ppen: "Jesus told me that I need $800 YSL shoes."

Yep, I'll give you a donation as soon as the Lord buys me a Mercedes-Benz (my friends all drive Porsches . . .)

Hmmmm? Me? Poysinally?

Well, I think the review is better than the original essay, which you can find through your public library's website, as I did.

But the point is this (as condensed by your loving, stunningly handsome Uncle Cridmo):

Christianity had just enough built-in paradox and magical thinking ("Turn the other cheek!," "Love your enemy!") for the average stooge to burn as fuel for his own most cowardly fantasies...

Such as— 'By voting for Obama, I can bring medicine to poor people using other people's money!'

Or even— 'By voting for Obama, I can pay for my health care with other people's money!'


In recent years, we've all been admiring the crisply-fractured sectarianism which has allowed the West to subdue Christian ambition after a mere, y'know, two thousand years. Blink of an eye, right? Piece o' cake! …Especially in comparison to a younger faith popular in the illiterate third world, where antagonisms are as primitive and elemental as we should expect them to be.

But Christianity's adaptability might also be seen as the opportunist cancer in human nature itself, which is always looking for the cheapest solution... For one's own problems, and for those of others.


Look at the blog post again. Amy didn't spot this phenomenon randomly, and Irj is not wrong to wonder where these people think 'Christian' intrusion ends... Or even if it ever does.


I'm here all week. Two shows Saturday.

I think the "other people's money" is the essential part here.

One of my friends, Lawyer Tom, makes a lot of money and is a Christian. With his money, and with a few of his wealthy friends, he supports a foundation downtown that helps homeless men. This comes out of his religious beliefs, which I do not share, but I admire the way he does this. He also is a conservative and libertarian. He is generous -- with his employees, with friends -- but not a mark and not somebody who is for taking from people who do not give voluntarily.

Nor am I. In fact, I think it's horrible.

...not somebody who is for taking from people who do not give voluntarily.

Nor am I. However, because so many people do NOT give voluntarily, whether because they're greedy, or socially inept, or, oh, I don't know, POOR THEMSELVES, perhaps? the government sees fit to try to LEGISLATE people into "giving" - as in "do it or else" - and if you don't you are subject to paying a "tax". Legal extortion, if you will.

Morality CANNOT be legislated. Although, damn, don't they try. And try. And try.

Crid, how's the veal?

It's delicious! You should try it! But don't forget to tip your waitress, and please... Drive safely! Thanks again for coming... Goodnight!

Shoes? wth people, I'm desperately in need of a '58 Custom Shop Les Paul.

Shoes. Pffft.