Why do republicans talk about Jesus feeding the poor as "Christian"

[onecaliberal]

But when a politician talks about feeding the poor its socialism?

They don’t even see the irony in voting against feeding children and saving lives.

[keithbvadu2]

1. Actually Jesus feeding the poor would be Jewish. Jesus was never a Christian.

Actually Jesus feeding the poor would be Jewish. Jesus was never a Christian.

Republicans are political Christians rather than Christians of faith.

[onecaliberal]

2. Republicans are not followers of Christ.

Period. They’re posers.

[gratuitous]

3. Republicans draw a very bright line

Between private charity and government programs for the benefit of what they call the undeserving. Republicans are (sort of) in favor of private charitable giving, at least to charities they like. Certainly not Planned Parenthood or the Clinton Foundation. But when government largesse goes to the undeserving, it's the end of the country if some single mother in East Bumblefuck gets $7 too much in SNAP benefits. It's far preferable for Republicans that people starve in the streets than even one dollar slips out of the Treasury into a poor person's pocket.

[CrispyQ]

4. I had one tell me that people

only appreciate charity when it's given freely from individuals, not when it's mandated & paid for by government. I told him the woman's organization I volunteered for had tons of women who were happy to receive government assistance vs assistance from individuals or organizations who wanted to proselytize to them.

[onecaliberal]

5. These people are stupid and evil.

[WyattKansas]

6. From now on, just keep repeating that Jesus was an economic socialist.

It drills down on what they are really pushing, which is the exact opposite of Jesus. It also short circuits their stupid 'socialist' boogeyman screech.

[treestar]

7. They argue that government should not do it

But charity.

They never have an answer for why if this country is Christian, why did the need for social programs ever come into being? If this were a Christian country, no one would want to be rich. It is harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven, so as soon as you have more than you need, you should be trying to get rid of it by helping the poor.

Never do they explain why a Christian nation can't use the government as a means to do the Christian thing. It would seem that a Christian nation would think first of the government as means to be most efficient and fair; otherwise some poor people might get helped before others, or be less poor and get helped in one place rather than another.

Sometimes you will find one who is held out as very charitable, who helps poor people, with admonitions to the liberal that they don't do that. The fact that individual can only do so much is never recognized, and that there is still a lot of poverty in spite of such persons.

[onecaliberal]

8. The fact that any of these posers think it's

Okay for some asswipe to own 6 yachts and park millions overseas away from legal taxation, while millions of children are starving and food insecure tells me all I need to know about these people.
Joe Biden, the second Catholic POTUS in American history has done more to lift children out of poverty than any of the so called “Christians” collectively ever have.

[TomSlick]

9. I've heard this argument. My response is always the same.

Our Constitution starts with "We the people." The government is "we the people" - all of us collectively. The government will necessarily reflect the values of "we the people." If "we the people" are a moral people, the national budget will reflect that fact. On the other hand, if "we the people" are mean-spirited and unconcerned about the poor, the national budget will reflect that fact.

"We the people" can care for the poor much more efficiently than all of us as individuals. Of course, "we the people" caring for the poor does not release the obligation of each of us to also show charity for the poor. No matter how well meaning and efficient "we the people" are in caring for the poor, there will be some who fall through the cracks. Each of us as individuals have a moral obligation to pick up that slack.

The Roman government of Jesus' time was certainly not going to care for the poor, it would have been silly to argue that it should. However, we do not live in imperial Rome. We live in a democratic republic that acts for and on behalf of - you guessed it - "we the people."

[ck4829]

10. K&R