Jerry Falwell, Jr. vs. Jesus

[LeaC]

Yes it does. He's speaking of secular governments, not individual generosity. A poor government simply can't help its poor citizens. That's basic economic fact.

Poor government meaning what? Electing the wealthy doesn't translate into good public policy.

I don't like the quote, even in context. He may be speaking of government, practical policy, and it's within his right to have opinions about that. But he's explicitly making a Christian argument in the process, which I don't agree is justifiable. A homeless man giving a starving child a loaf of bread is giving as worthy a gift as a wealthy donor, even if it doesn't necessarily have great societal impact. I don't know if he means this, but he seems to be suggesting that the wealthy are better people, better Christians, than the poor - and that I definitely have a problem with.

I also don't agree that a candidate's personal life has no impact on whether or not we should vote for them, but I wouldn't really care if he would just find a less explicitly 'biblical' way to make that case.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes it does. He's speaking of secular governments, not individual generosity. A poor government simply can't help its poor citizens. That's basic economic fact.

Yeah. He's basically saying that we should vote for people who can improve the economy, so we can get more people jobs and provide more assistance. It is not in the least bit analogous to saying that the poor aren't generous or that the widow's mite doesn't matter.

[Bill the Cat]

Poor government meaning what? Electing the wealthy doesn't translate into good public policy.

Poor government meaning lack of proper resources to pay for the things a government should. As opposed to a rich government that can pay for them.

I don't like the quote, even in context. He may be speaking of government, practical policy, and it's within his right to have opinions about that. But he's explicitly making a Christian argument in the process, which I don't agree is justifiable.

To which he PURPOSEFULLY separated the spiritual discussion from the earthly discussion. He's not saying Christians should not be generous, nor is he saying the giving of individual poor isn't a spiritual matter, and worthy of praise. He's saying that a government needs money to be able to effectively help the poor, and if it lacks it, they are not very able to assist.

A homeless man giving a starving child a loaf of bread is giving as worthy a gift as a wealthy donor, even if it doesn't necessarily have great societal impact.

No one is debating that. Jerry even says so. He's saying that in an "earthly kingdom", money is required to make a wider impact.

I don't know if he means this, but he seems to be suggesting that the wealthy are better people, better Christians, than the poor - and that I definitely have a problem with.

That's not even remotely what he is talking about.

I also don't agree that a candidate's personal life has no impact on whether or not we should vote for them, but I wouldn't really care if he would just find a less explicitly 'biblical' way to make that case.

I am with you there. But I get what Jerry is saying too.

[KingsGambit]

What he could have said if he wanted to make that sort of point is that a poor population isn't going to create jobs. Instead, we have this.

The argument about personal life not mattering seems so weird given that his father famously excoriated the personal life of Jimmy Carter and maintained it mattered. But he was a different man.

[rogue06]

I've found that a number of sites will allow you in a couple to half a dozen times, then start shaking you done for cash.

The New York Times and several others permits you to access their site a few times each month but the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal allow no access whatsoever.

[LeaC]

Poor government meaning lack of proper resources to pay for the things a government should. As opposed to a rich government that can pay for them.

So, greater GDP, or higher taxes?

To which he PURPOSEFULLY separated the spiritual discussion from the earthly discussion. He's not saying Christians should not be generous, nor is he saying the giving of individual poor isn't a spiritual matter, and worthy of praise. He's saying that a government needs money to be able to effectively help the poor, and if it lacks it, they are not very able to assist.

Right, I understand that's what his intention was, but it was poorly phrased.

That's not even remotely what he is talking about.

It's the conflation between America, the country, helping people elsewhere and individual poor people not being able to donate more that bothers me. Nations vs private actions, it doesn't work as a metaphor. When it comes to choosing politicians, it's not a choice between an immoral rich person with great business sense and a virtuous pauper with terrible policies. At least in the case of the President, it's two wealthy people of questionable morality and vaguely defined goals arguing that the other person's crimes are worse. I'm sure he isn't trying to say wealth is better, but the comparison doesn't follow from the argument.

[NorrinRadd]

Since I am somehow inexplicably able to penetrate WaPo's force-field, I will quote and comment on a few portions besides what Bill the Cat provided in Reply 10.

Source: WaPo

So, the government you want is one free of religious association?

© Copyright Original Source

This part above is foundational to the article as a whole.




This is good, except he should have gone out of his way to include Antifa as terrorists. Wuss.

Source: WaPo

You and other white evangelical leaders have strongly supported President Trump. What about him exemplifies Christianity and earns him your support?

© Copyright Original Source

His reasons are not the same as mine, but they are fine.

Notice he did NOT claim that anything about Trump "exemplifies Christianity." At this point, I will again bring up an underused point that I have not noticed anyone else addressing: If "exemplifying Christianity" is important, Christians would not vote for a pseudo-Christian cultist such as Romney or any other Mormon.

Source: WaPo

Is there anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders?

No.

© Copyright Original Source

The unqualified "No" is astonishingly stupid. I don't *expect* him to do any such thing, but if, e.g., he did something like diddling a young intern with a cigar during his Presidency, I would totally abandon him and call for his resignation, and I hope all Evangelicals would do likewise.




This is the portion previously cited. I'm disappointed that he missed an excellent opportunity to denigrate Romney's religion. (I am mainly in favor of doing so in cases where it is one that pretends to be Christian.)

It honestly baffles me that people insist on imposing Mark 12 / Luke 21 on this. He is not denigrating poor people, he is advocating for an economy that reduces their number.

[Catholicity]

I can read the Washington Post Rogue.

[Cow Poke]

I can read the Washington Post Rogue.

Thank a teacher!

[One Bad Pig]

I can read the Washington Post Rogue.

What is the Washington Post Rogue?

[Sparko]

What is the Washington Post Rogue?

It is what is left after rogue got done with it. It's post Rogue. PR.

[rogue06]

It is what is left after rogue got done with it. It's post Rogue. PR.

Ah, scattered ashes.

[One Bad Pig]

Ah, scattered ashes.

In that case, reading it is quite a feat!