Why does the church in America oppose government charity?

Question

The church was once the sole source of 'charity' to the starving slaves of Europe, but it was also trhe government. Now it opposes all forms of government charity (aid to the needy), claiming that it makes them lazy. Why is this? Government aids many more needy people than the church ever did.

Answer 1

I think it depends on the church you go to, the neighborhood, town, city, state, etc you live in. The church I went to was full of mostly older people who perfer not to give to charity, come from working class background or created it for their children and maybe at the most gets SS retirement pensions. Yet, I know a church in my neighborhood with a lot of poor members (from what I observed and knew of their summer program) who had their own special house for unwed mothers, and food drives, etc.

I can see it on both sides, I think some people believe God or Jesus wanted Christians to provide for themselves with what they had or what God gave them while others believe we should give to the poor. The bible teaches us both lessons.

Answer 2

I don't know what church you go to, but my Lutheran denomination has never opposed the government's aid to the poor and the needy. In fact, we are glad to have the government do its part here.

Answer 3

Are you crazy or drunk? Only about 5% of charities have anything to do with government, another 5% are "supposed to be" non-religious and the other 90% IS CHURCH SPONSORED.

You need to do some research.

NEVER MIND: I JUST READ SOME OF YOUR OTHER STUFF. YOU'RE JUST CRAZY, SORRY IF I UPSET YOU, GO TAKE YOUR PILLS.

Answer 4

Pray tell, what church are you speaking of?
Oh, and for comparison, where exactly was all the help from the government after Katrina? Even now, New Orleans is a mess.
You, are sitting in the position of slanderer.

Answer 5

Charity is the VOLUNTARY offering of information to human beings that are in prefer. the U. S. is the main charitable u . s . in the international. it is not delight speaking, that's actuality. compelled confiscation of non-public wealth, for any purpose, is a thoroughly distinctive animal that has no longer something to do with charity. individuals do no longer balk from assisting human beings that are relatively in prefer of it.. we even tend to hurry to their help. Our opposition to confiscatory taxation for a million and one distinctive reasons isn't our indifference to suffering; yet somewhat to the hundred-3 hundred and sixty 5 days-plus record of the state being thoroughly incompetent, inefficient, and wasteful with the supplies of the human beings after it has STOLEN them from us. consistent with possibility Europeans can have confidence their leaders to do the ideal venture... if so, God bless you. We, although, can't. we've been bitten many circumstances over the centuries. we are familiar with, and anticipate to be lied to, ripped-off via, and deceived via our 'leaders'. it is the reason we are reticent to offer them our annoying-earned supplies. Their strikes are no longer charity... they're graft, thievery, and racketeering. The care that your brother relatively gets, and the exponential cost that it relatively takes to make it happen, are extremely distinctive. After that's filtered via one hundred distinctive companies & directors & miles of crimson tape, i could wager that he relatively gets approximately 20% of the care that we pay for, for him. that's the venture we've with it. Take public faculties case in point; they're the main costly coaching in the international, yet produce between the worst products. Catholic faculties, via assessment, cost approximately 20% as lots consistent with student, and provide far stronger outcomes. that's a similar in all bureaucracies. And we can't fund them from now on than we are compelled to at gunpoint.

Answer 6

You are dead wrong. Go read a book