As the debates rage on about the undisputable need to care for the poor in the community, liberals are again trying to paint Jesus as a Democrat, saying that Jesus' actions as a politician would be to place a heavy tax burden on the wealthy to feed and clothe the needy. Such postulating is mere speculation, as Jesus never held a political office, and probably for good reason. Frankly, I find attempts to coopt Jesus into the political agenda of ANY political party to be an action bordering on blasphemous.

Jesus DID exhort us to care for the poor and needy. In fact, He made it pretty clear that those who had the opportunity to care for the poor and needy but did not would have a tough time of things when they stand in judgement. But, while He did exhort Christians to pay their taxes, He NEVER decreed that the care of the poor and needy was the responsibility of the government; in fact, it would seem to be quite the opposite.

Let's say you're walking down the street, and I mug you. I take the money from your wallet, and I walk DIRECTLY to the homeless shelter and I give it to them. Would you accept my plea of innocence because my actions were meant to give to charity? No, you would want me punished and rightly so. I stole what belonged to you, and I had no business deciding that money belonged to the homeless shelter instead. However altruistic my actions after the commission of the crime may have been, they do not exonerate the crime I committed.

The government has a definite need to pay for the operation of the government. And to that end, they must tax us, however distasteful such taxation may be. And it is our duty as citizens to pay those taxes. But it is NOT the government's right to redistribute wealth from one group of citizens to another. The money that most of us make has been hard earned, and is being used to pay for the upkeep of a class of citizens who frankly do not care enough to take a personal stake in their own future. As long as the government checks continue to roll in, they will continue to lead a life of leisure rather than find ways to support themselves.

That being said, there is a VERY SMALL class of people who cannot or will not support themselves, and it is not entirely out of line to think that the government should have some hand in helping those people. But because they are stewards of a public trust, they must do so in the most cost efficient way possible. This means returning the severely disabled to the mental institutions, and creating poorhouses far from heavy population areas so that the criminal element among the poor do not affect the standard of living of those who have worked for their living.

Before you write me off as callous and inhumane, let me state clearly that I find the prospect of such a society utterly appalling. And yet, that is what society should be if we demand the government act as caretakers. Isn't it far better, far more humane, to take responsibility for the upkeep of these citizens ourselves and let the government go about the business of governing?

Every word Jesus spoke about compassion for the poor revolved around PERSONAL, not governmental, responsibility. And the Old Testament is no different While the liberal theologian would point to the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah as evidence of God's judgement upon the government's cities, the fact that He would have spared the cities for the sake of ten righteous would indicate he was judging the individuals, not the government.

To think that it is noble or Holy to steal the wages of another and give to someone more needy is a HIGHLY fallacious interpretation of the Gospel. You are called to be stewards with YOUR wages, NOT someone else, and it is YOUR actions, not those of your government, for which you will be judged.