According to many Republican politicians and pundits, caring for the poor is the job of the churches, not the government. Now Franklin Graham, son of the famed evangelist, is claiming that churches no longer care for the poor, because government stole that role from them. I lave a load of that to fertilize the front lawn!
I can’t help wondering why Franklin Graham isn’t preaching an Easter Sunday revival instead of showing up on Christiane Amanpour’s show to make political statements, or to be more accurate, pronouncements. Some pronouncements, however, should not be allowed to stand unchallenged, and the following is one of them.
AMANPOUR: We in this country and around the world are living in very dire times right now. Dire financial times, economic crisis, the gap between rich and poor is growing, not only here, but all over the world.
What can the church do to fill that gap and to step into that gap?
GRAHAM: Christiane, a hundred years ago, the safety net, the social safety net in the country was provided by the church.
If you didn’t have a job, you’d go to your local church and ask the pastor if he know somebody that could hire him. If you were hungry, you went to the local church and told them, "I can’t feed my family." And the church would help you. And that’s not being done.
But the government took that. And took it away from the church. And they had more money to give and more programs to give, and pretty soon, the churches just backed off.
And as a result, now you have generation after generation of pastors in churches that have not done that. And you would have to teach them again how to do it.
Well, Reverend Graham, that is somewhat true but mostly not, because of course, churches rely upon the gifts of their congregation. Churches, like everyone else, suffered the effects. Many had debt obligations on their church buildings and were forced into default as offerings fell away, causing them to have to close the doors entirely… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Crooks ans Liars>
Here’s the video. After the statement above, it’s mostly a rehash of religious right dogma.
Now, lets get to the lie. It is mostly true that, at one time, churches fulfill that rose, and some still do. However, for the vast majority of American churches, especially the pseudo-Christian of Republican Supply-side Jesus (not the real Jesus), the focus switched to foreign missions that created more notches on soul belts, churching the unchurched, and catering to rich congregants to help build cushier churches. Helping the poor fell by the wayside without government help. Added to that, the prosperity doctrine became popular that wealth is God’s blessing for piety, while poverty is God’s punishment for sin. The poor became the new lepers. Government stepped in to help provide a safety net, because the churches were not taking care of the poor. There is no credible evidence to support the idea that, if government steps back, the churches will step forward to care for the poor. For Graham to imply otherwise is a lie. Government is not at fault for Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christian greed.
That said, to those authentic Christians, who do all they can, thank you. This does not apply to you.
25 Responses to “Would Churches Care for the Poor?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sure, the churches will “care” for the poor. Just like they always have. all you have to do is swallow the line and do what they tell you to do. Ask Jim Jones; he knew how to “take care” of things.
JR, I agree. Jones would be an ideal Bagger.
The churches round here a good many of them do have food banks and soup kitchens going but are usually out of food by Wednesday. The wealthiest ones do the be rich in faith and God (JEEEESUS actually) will bless you. Hell some radio preachers are now saying it’s OK to steal and illegally hook into utility lines or it’s all right to strip abandoned buildings for anything of worth because those banks that own them stole from them from people.
We are well past time to tax churches, with property and income taxes. They want to with impunity use the pulpit to preach what the law and government should be which in essence makes them a political organization.
Mark, taxing them is a separate issue. They are not exempt because they are churches. They are exempt, because they are 501(c)(3) nonprofits. By applying for 501(c)(3) status, all such organizations agree not to engage in political campaigns, not just churches. Most 501(c)(3) organizations, like the one on whose board I serve and through which I help prisoners, obey the restrictions. That’s why I don’t promote my volunteer organization here or my political activism in my volunteer work. We deserve our tax exempt status. The solution is to pursue the churches that violate their 501(c)(3) terms. That has not been done much at all.
If your 501(c)(3) organization gets t bleed politics as you provide your services to your constituency then it too should be taxed. But if you stick to your mission statement and really appear and act as a non political organization then you should retain tax exempt status. BUT churches today in the main are political organizations and are hiding behind 501(c)(3) status. That loophole should be closed.
Franklin Graham has a long and disgusting history of Islamophobia and birtherism, so I fault ABC in general, and Christiane Amanpour in particular, for [1] Not confronting Graham on is hate-mongering Talibangelical christianism, and [2] having him on in the first place. He’s a known wacko and there are other half-way reputable Christian leaders out there – like Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who was on MTP yesterday and literally called the birthers “Nuts!”
And on a lighter note, a Tweet by Rex Huppke that’s gone viral:
http://favstar.fm/users/RexHuppke/status/61892645680713728
Love it, Nameless. I wonder why Tiberius ignored him.
“Government stepped in to help provide a safety net”
This is what government, in general, does. It steps in and provides services where individuals or other organizations either do not or will not. Defense, regulation, safety nets. They are all cases where government steps in to do what must be done to protect and provide for the general welfare.
Jerry, I fully agree.
My great-grandfather was a farmer who died in Lancaster County, Pa., during the 1918 flu pandemic. He left a wife and two children, ages three and five. Without the safety net of Social Security, my great-grandmother was unable to support the children, so the youngest went to a boys’ home and the eldest, my grandmother, went to work for a wealthy family as a domestic. My great-grandmother also became a live-in servant for a wealthy family. This was a Christian family living in a deeply religious community. I’m sure the community and the families that took in my great-grandmother and grandmother thought they were doing a Christian deed, and in the context of the times, they were. But the point is that good times ebb and flow. When a community is poor and suffering, the best that a community (and its churches) can do is force widows to give their children away to institutions and families willing to keep them as servants. Our national remedy for this has been Social Security, and many families have since been saved the fate of my ancestors. It appears, however, that it has taken our nation less than 100 years to forget from whence we came.
Welcome Rick! 🙂
Thank you for the personal background that illustrates my point so well. Wow!
Unfortunately too many churches have too many prejudices to be trusted in such a role. In many cases, the poor and elderly who happened to be gay or non-Christian might find services unavailable, or available only at the price of submitting to proselytizing or other abusive treatment. In fact, I can just imagine some of those “supply-side Jesus” churches salivating at the chance to inflict such humiliations on desperate people they disapproved of.
The social safety net should be provided by the government, which in obligated to serve everyone without discrimination.
Infidel, I agree. I think that Jesus would not be welcome in most of those churches, because they would not tolerate the people he would befriend.
I have rarely felt so sad , the statements of Graham are so far out of touch with reality , i am stunned–hardly know what to say ; I remember, when I was a little girl-the old poor farm that was still open in my home county–I remember my grandma’s fear of having to go there , I remember the uncle who gave up marriage and a family of his own to prevent that ; and take care of her in her own home–And I recall the poverty of my own childhood-the baskets of food at Christmas–and the humiliation of receiving them–
I could go on and on–the truth is the Churches never met needs–I am grateful now for Social Security , medicare ,the rest of the safety net- and I am grateful , the fear of my childhood is past–
Phyllis, that’s my point exactly. Your experience brings it home in a way that I could not.
You know how the church takes care of the poor? The government writes them a fat check so they can do their job. If they had to rely solely on tithing and donations the poor would be in big trouble.
Blue, that’s an excellent point. And all too often those funds find their way into proselytizing at taxpayer expense.
Sure, churches will provide some care for the poor. But first you have to be straight. You also have to listen to sermons, may have to convert to the religion pushed by the church, and will likely have to jump through other “faith based” hoops. After all, the church won’t violate their dogma for the sake of aiding some dirty poor person. Jesus certainly wouldn’t have done anything like that. Churches call it charity, but true charity doesn’t have strings attached.
Buffy, the bigoted hate against LGBT folks from by these pseudo-Christian churches is undeniable. Jesus always accepted people as is, except for his intolerance for religious hypocrites who used people’s faith as an excuse to enforce piety codes and profit. Authentic Christians will accept you without strings. You are welcome here.
I know there are decent Christians out there. There are several in my family and I used to be one myself. I have no qualms with people who use their faith to guide their own lives, and even as a way of doing good for others. Sadly too many use “faith” to bludgeon/control others, to shield themselves against any criticism of their words and actions, and as an all-purpose excuse to get out of anything they don’t want to do (obey laws, do their job, etc). Worse yet, they’re the loud and obnoxious ones, and their voices are all too influential which makes it seem they are the face of Christianity.
America was a dismal place before the safety net programs. Seniors dying prematurely, hunger, starvation, oppressive working conditions, etc.
All these programs Republicans like to call Socialist and would like to dismantle made America one of better places to live.
Religious groups (whether you think they did good or not) simply did not have the resources to help the large number of people in need. Only the Federal government could do the job.
I for one am willing to pay higher taxes to live in a more compassionate society. My parents and grandparents (who lived and suffered through America without safety nets) agreed, and put their money (raised taxes on themselves) where their principles were.
The problem is, the current generation (selfish) who are unwilling to pay for these programs. Maybe they don’t see the priority having not lived through the sad times without safety net programs.
I am sure the last thing churches want, is to take over providing for the poor in our society.They look forward to investing their money in a more profitable undertaking. God bless them.
Tom, I fully agree, except for your last statement. Supply-side churches are perfectly willing to let thousands perish to have the power to hold survival over people’s heads to demand obedience.
just kidding with that last line.Sarcasim.
Although many churches either run or provide support for help the poor efforts, most have seen their resources being depleted by current conditions. It’s rather ironic that these same churches were also the biggest supporters of the folks who caused their decline. Now the less affluent folks are being used to promote the same folks that have so damaged the middle class & the churches the middle class largely funded. While I consider the damage done to the churches and the middle class ironic, it’s only because I feel they went for the gold ring only to find it was only painted tin. The poor have largely been fooled by promises of the greedy to save them from unfair taxation, taxation to which almost all of them are NOT subject to paying and ARE getting help from. The Grover Norquist and Ryan are only concerned with helping their high dollar corporate controllers. 😡
Welcome Mike! 🙂
The religious right and non-religious tea party types are “useful fools” and will be discarded when and is Republicans establish the permanent one-party dictatorship they seek.