This is a belated post inspired by the debate, inspired by the Facebook question.
The question brings up the whole conversation regarding charity.
Democrats, Socialists, and Communists have used a presumption about Jesus’s words to back up their own form of charity, which is to steal from some, and give to the poor, and thereby create a political class that will continually vote in those who will give them the goodies. They consider it a prerogative of the state or collective to define charity. This kind of charity creates a cycle of poverty. It also creates a permanent political class who will promise other people’s money. It creates cushy jobs for politicians and their entourage, who promise money and benefits. As the money flows to the poor, a portion is filtered into establishment pockets on the way.
It is worth pointing out the intent of charity as actually defined by Jesus in his words. In the Sermon on the Mount, he covered various private disciplines. In the same sermon, the focus was “thou”, an old English word for today’s word, “you”.
Matthew 6:3 But when thou doest alms….
Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest….
Matthew 6:17 But thou, when thou fastest….
In other words, charity, giving, or alms giving as it used to be called, is for the individual, not the government. The idea that the government should take from one and give to another is not backed up by the words of Jesus. Jesus advocated personal giving, not corporate government giving.
“Give a man a fish, and you have fed him a meal; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Private aid can take many forms, but often involves helping people gain skills that help them become economically stable for life. Government handouts become a permanent form of stealing from some, and giving to others, without any promise that the recipients will ever gain financial economic stability.
Jesus did not advocate the government-theft type of charity. He advocated private giving.