PUBLIC VIEWPOINT

Who’s ‘Allowing’ Poor To Be Hungry, Anyway?

The Rev. Lowell Grisham has a good heart. As do most Americans, he sincerely wishes to feed poor children (will we never tire of having our heartstrings tugged upon thusly by the compassionate) Father Grisham (June 23) mischaracterizes Matthew 25 as some sort of statement by Jesus as to how nations should behave. It simply states the nations of the world will be brought together and that the righteous will be called to God (individuals, not nations).

Charity, in the truestbiblical sense, is the quiet act of an individual as in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7.

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Any attribution of righteousness to government presupposes it is composed of righteous men with righteous aims (subdue your laughter if you can).

My support of programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will become more automatic when they become more accountable. The biggest advocates of these programs are alsothe individuals who fi ght all efforts to signifi cantly monitor or regulate them (the defeat of Marino’s “S.N.A.P. Transparency” Farm Bill amendment, e.g.). As is the case in the abortion debate, anyone pushing for sensible reform is labeled as a hater or heartless. I wholeheartedly agree a compassionate nation must feed those who cannot feed themselves.

At what point, though, do we awaken to the disastrous unintended consequences of our “war on poverty?” How are generational poverty and the dissolution of traditional families inaccordance with Christian principles?

More importantly, when do we wise up about the ultimate motives of progressives? Why the continued push to expand the number of people dependent upon government largesse? To them, a person dependent on government equals power. The more the better! This isn’t true compassion. It’s greed.

In what other context could any reasonable person advocate for an all-encompassing nannystate and open borders at the same time?

The good Father’s expression of supportfor Liberation Theology tenets is bold. Like many, I see this, quite simply, as Christianized Marxism and reject it wholeheartedly. The ultimate outcome of such “compassionate” policies is that we all become itinerant slaves on the government plantation.

Instead of money, the currency in this type of society is power. Only those in government, or with connections to it, can access the better things in life (Cuba, USSR, Venezuela, etc.).

Capitalism is the freedom to earn as much money (within the law) as your abilities and drive allowyou to make. You can then purchase the things you need or want and provide for your family and friends‚ as well as caring for the needy. In an open Capitalist society such as ours anyone can become wealthy. In a Marxist society, like the one being pushed for by modern progressives, only the connected can do so.

Simply put, I support helping those who can’t help themselves.

Taxpayer money should never be spent on those who simply won’t.

STEVE BLEVINS

Fayetteville

Opinion, Pages 14 on 06/30/2013

Upcoming Events