Latest Breaking News

The Jungle 1

(4,552 posts)

23. explanation

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 09:24 AM

Dec 2014

Here is the thing. Christ did not ask us to help the poor if we happen to have some extra cash and feel like it. He demanded we help the poor. He also did not say anything about first judging the poor. I am pretty sure he did say something about who would do the judging and it ain't us.

This is wrong on all levels and the people doing it need to visit the building with the pointy roof and have a long talk with the guy that works there.

Over 95% of Americans on public assistance are single mothers. I thought the right wanted to reduce abortion. Most are on public assistance less than 2 years and then move on with their lives. What we do is provide a Christian helping hand for these people and that is the right thing to do.

So run that by your sister.
Ok Soapbox I will get off my pulpit now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Snyder signs suspicion-based drug testing bills [View all] inanna Dec 2014 OP

Test CEOs The Jungle 1 Dec 2014 #1

Put A Hex On Them billhicks76 Dec 2014 #30

test everyone in the legislature oldandhappy Dec 2014 #2

Blatantly unconstitutional. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #3

In Canada, social workers used to do home visits to determine if one "qualified" for assistance. inanna Dec 2014 #4

I hear you. They used to come in some states in the US as well. And having had a few of those jwirr Dec 2014 #14

If cons do respect the constitution why do they pass transparently bad laws blatantly attacking it? Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #17

They were *never* on board with the Constitution. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #18

Post removed Post removed Dec 2014 #25

I'd bet you're the one that doesn't work here. notadmblnd Dec 2014 #26

'Suspicion' based on what? elleng Dec 2014 #5

Exactly! Was my question too. n/t inanna Dec 2014 #6

Unfortunately journalist, elleng Dec 2014 #7

Suspicion of being Black lobodons Dec 2014 #8

suspicion of being poor ccarmenfrongillo Dec 2014 #24

wait until heaven05 Dec 2014 #9

Yikes. blkmusclmachine Dec 2014 #20

I have yet to hear an answer to the Q Cryptoad Dec 2014 #10

Best Q in the world. Also (from experience) husband is a user - wife (or vice versa) is not. She jwirr Dec 2014 #13

Of course the SCOTUS,,,,, Cryptoad Dec 2014 #15

I'm sure my white sister and brother-in-law, a "good" church going couple SoapBox Dec 2014 #11

explanation The Jungle 1 Dec 2014 #23

"suspected drug users" leaves a lot of room for abuse. But above all it has not been effective in jwirr Dec 2014 #12

It's good politics for Republicans. Demonizing the poor and people of color. Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #28

What a cretin PumpkinAle Dec 2014 #16

Kick them while their down legislation project_bluebook Dec 2014 #19

Heartless scumbag. BeanMusical Dec 2014 #21

I wonder which of his relatives owns a drug testing company Siwsan Dec 2014 #22

This laws was declared void in Florida Gothmog Dec 2014 #27

That's why this law is "suspicion-based." Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #29