news-record.com

Work is biblical. Work existed even before the Fall. Work is not part of our punishment--it is part of our purpose.

Brilliant, i couldn't have said it better MamaB. subverting the bible to your own ends is the purpose of churches that preach "social' and "racial"(see Liberation Theology) agendas. Christ helped the poor so we should have our wealth and possessions stolen from us so that the Gubmt can help the poor. In exchange for their eternal and generational institutional servitude. It's not 1800's slavery but the new economic slavery of the 21st century. the one thing that you can say about it is that it is truly a slavery for all peoples. White, Black, Asian, Hispanic,,,,true diversity.

But the church (or Church) has never succeeded in fulfilling that goal, and it often has tried much harder to enrich itself and dress its superstition in the trappings of wealth and grandeur than care for the needy.
It is a gross over simplification to say that the Bible only asks private individuals to voluntarily help those less fortunate. Both testaments make it abundantly clear that for individuals it is an obligation, a duty, and that leaders and rulers are to be judged by how well they, in their capacity as leaders of men, cared for the widowed, the orphaned, the sick, and the poor. Were I a Christian or a Jew, I would find it personally shameful that I had to be reminded of this.

This has nothing to do with what Beck is saying.

Beck is saying that if a church wants to advocate for positive social change, that's the same thing as communism and Nazism (which are diametrically opposed, but Beck ignores this). It's not the same thing. Social change and justice can be as simple as feeding the poor and helping them find housing, education, and jobs. As Pitts points out, it includes pro-life advocates. While I don't like the tactics of some pro-life advocates, I would not call them either communist or Nazi's.

Early Christian leaders certainly thought and taught that such obligations fell on the government, and that they and their followers had to assume those responsibilities in large part because foreign occupiers and local rulers owing their positions to foreign powers did not take up those responsibilities. While it is difficult to correlate every current federal agency with the thoughts of our founders, certainly they had hoped for more national involvement in education than is apparent. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison all asked Congress to establish a national university. At the time there was no question of the federal government's power to do so, but Congress could never find the funds to build a campus and hire teachers. The above leaders felt that such an institution was vital to allow the best of American minds - even Jefferson who argued against an hereditary aristocracy realized that there would arise a natural intellectual elite, he just thought that such people would come from all classes, as has thankfully been the case - to come together and forge a national set a common values, to avoid regionalism and less the influence of narrow vested interests. When our founders wrote of the national welfare, they probably had something different in mind than modern welfare, but they did make such that land prices in the western territories were low enough that the less advantaged could go there and acquire enough land to farm and feed their families (which of course had disastrous consequences for the peoples who were already living there), a form of welfare by acreage.
Another example of one state effecting standards and conditions in other states is the Texas state school board. While I think it can be argued that the majority of this board has broadened history standards to include a more inclusive approach, it has lowered the level of truth and accuracy in what is taught in history and most noticeably in science while doing so. This will have an unfortunate influence on textbooks and supplementary materials available to schools throughout the US because of the large quantities of books and materials Texas purchases in state-wide adoptions.
I cannot agree that we "let a small cadre of professional politicians" do anything, let alone dictate anything. Every Congressman and Senator, every President, is elected, and we elect them to do what we are not willing or capable of doing for ourselves. They are professional only in the sense that there are not enough other people willing to do the work of governing that viable, preferable challengers stand to run against them. Most of these "professional politicians" could have made equal or better salaries with less work and stress in private industries or professions - whence most of them came - and few actually get rich at being politicians. The wealth usually comes later when they write or speak for fees and can take advantage of their expertise and influence in private positions, often working to craft legislation or policy.
We should all congratulate those Christian sects which have assisted in the betterment of the human condition, but we should be careful to note that yesterday's benefice can become tomorrow's tether when sectarian beliefs fall behind developments in governance, medicine, and science. The same sects that supported universities, hospitals, and shelters also opposed ending the divine right of kings, advances in astronomy and biology, anatomy lessons and vaccinations, and the end to the poor laws that jailed paupers for having debts. It's a messy, confusing world out there at times.

The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the world we now live in. But they valued education. There was no need for a Department of Education in their day.

There is no Department of welfare. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is part of the Department of Commerce.

We are a much more mobile society than we were 200 years ago. We need national policy more because of this.

If you don't like one state setting standards, then maybe there SHOULD be national standards. Your citation of autos in California works against your won argument.

So what level can government be at to be most effective? Americans disagree on this.

Why do we need to rely on the Church to run our schools, universities, hospitals, etc? Do we not have a social obligation to one another? Or is it every man for himself, except at church?

Well, the tag's new, but the rant is the same old insanely jealous garbage. Some folks just don't understand how crazy they sound when they accuse Pitts of racism or anti-Americanism.
If Pitts has such a fine house and so many cars, it's because people of all races find a bit of wisdom and enjoyment in his writings, which I doubt the rest of us can claim to any appreciable degree. This puts him up there with Jay Leno, who has at least as fine a house and as many cars, and possibly into the stratospheric heights of Bill Gates or some such. Not bad for a crack-headed slum boy, though I rather think Pitts is just a darn fine and sober writer who has something important to say in almost every commentary, while there are a few too many universal genii who have nothing intelligent or civil to say about anything. I don't care what Pitts's religion is. I have faith that, as evidenced by the crazies he enrages, Pitts is a just and reasonable man, and that is all our founders demanded of good American citizens.

whoa, there. You're kind of nuts.

Excellent points! Government gives the physical without addressing the spiritual problems that may have caused the physical needs. The church is the institution best equipped to do both. When the church cops out by calling on the govt to do the work of the church, that is wrong and does not truly serve the needy.

Spoken like a True Liberal Parasite.........