Edwards: Jesus Appalled At 'Selfish' America

[Tigermike 3,055]

Edwards: Jesus Would Be 'Appalled' at U.S.

Monday , March 05, 2007

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. —

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

Edwards also said he was against teacher-led prayers in public schools, but he added that "allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only OK, I think it's a good thing."

In the interview, the former North Carolina senator discussed how he lost touch with his day-to-day faith during college, but that it "came roaring back" after the death of his 16-year-old son, Wade, in 1996.

Edwards has often cited religion as a part of his politics, frequently linking his efforts to fight poverty as a matter of morality.

Edwards was interviewed by David Kuo, a conservative Christian who served as deputy director of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003. Kuo wrote a book, "Tempting Faith, An Inside Story of Political Seduction," that said Bush aides privately called conservative Christians "nuts," "ridiculous" and "goofy."

Edwards told Kuo he stood by a decision to keep two bloggers on his staff despite their provocative writings criticizing the Catholic Church. Edwards said he also found the writing offensive, but "decided to forgive them and stand by them, knowing there would be potential political consequences for that."

The bloggers later quit, saying they didn't want to be a liability to the campaign.

LINK

I bet Jesus would declare a grown man having his teeth capped to be a very Metro-Sexually selfish act. Oh, and the Son of God would be appalled, too.

America is very, very bad. And when Jesus gets home you're gonna get it! At least that's what presidential candidate and perpetually outraged Metro-Sexual John Edwards thinks. Odd that he thinks so highly of himself that he believes he should be president, yet doesn't have respect for anyone else. In fact, he has such contempt for the United States he has indeed declared that Jesus, the one and only Son of God, would be appalled at how bad and selfish and mean we are.

That's pretty serious. I mean, who wants to disappoint the Creator? Another question for us Mortals is, Who actually would vote for a guy to be president who has such a low opinion of the country he is campaigning to lead? Certainly not me. Last time I checked, we preferred leaders who liked and respected us. But I suppose anyone who looked at November's election could easily (and mistakenly) take away a message that we're ready to be slapped around by people who don't like us (i.e. the Dems versus everyone else). Thinking that, however, would be a mistake.

How strange that in John Edwards' world spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives to liberate 53 million strangers doesn't count as compassionate generosity. Last time I checked, for the past six years we have been making up for ignoring the plight of the world from 1992-2000. We looked away from the Rwandan genocide, the Taliban rape of Afghanistan, and Saddam's mass murder of over one million of his own citizens. But at least the Prez was getting some booty.

Speaking of what Jesus is thinking, Edwards should start reading up about his issue here. I bet Jesus would also be appalled by a certain self-righteous multi-millionaire who lectures other people about 'selfish short-term needs' who builds a $6 million dollar mansion for his small (but very busy!) family on 102 acres of land. Which also happens to be 25 times larger than any other house in the county.

LINK

[CCTAU 3,350]

Would Jesus even know him. I mean how many lawyers do you think Jesus has ever met in heaven. hehehehe

[AFTiger 282]

Why is it that liberals want Jesus out of government until it comes to raising taxes?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Why is it that liberals want Jesus out of government until it comes to raising taxes?

Or during election campaigns.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Despite my misgivings about the messenger, I actually sort of agree with him that Jesus would be upset with our materialism and selfishness. But not just America's. We don't corner the market on it or anything.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think Jesus would be dissapointed with the overall selfish nature of Americans. He would also be dissapointed in the way that democrats want to go about taxing us through the nose for the purpose of social welfare programs.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I think Jesus would be dissapointed with the overall selfish nature of Americans. He would also be dissapointed in the way that democrats want to go about taxing us through the nose for the purpose of social welfare programs.

And correspondingly disappointed with the overall lack of response from His Church to take care of the poor so that no one would even feel a need for gov't run welfare programs. I can't speak for all churches or for every church that has nice facilities, but I've attended more than one that had spectacular facilities and expansive evangelism programs, but in the grand scheme of things did very little for the poor. It's like they were concerned about getting them saved and them being comfortable while at church, but nothing in between.

One church up here was building a huge new worship center with state of the art electronics and plush seating. They had plans to put in a huge aquarium in the lobby that would be built into the wall at a cost of about $50,000. They ended up scrapping that but not to spend it on helping the poor or anything. Just some other part of the facility.

I'm trying to imagine explaining to God one day why when I had a spare 50 G's laying around that the best I thing I could come up with was to spend it on a fish tank for my church lobby. Not 5 or 6 decent cars I could give to some folks who needed reliable transportation to hold down a good paying job, not toward perhaps starting a program to provide low cost childcare to help single moms get off welfare and be able to work and have their kids taken care of, not to start a job training or other teaching facility to help people learn to read, learn a usable job skill or retrain themselves. Nope. We really needed a fish tank.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I am VERY dissapointed in the Church's lack of outward reach to help the poor.

It seems like the MAJORITY of money in Churches is used for either building funds or mission work both home and abroad. Mission work is great, but it doesn't normally put food in mouths on a massive scale.

Sadly, the Church today seems to be more concerned with furthering its IMAGE rather than its CALLING.

[otterinbham 0]

I think Jesus would be dissapointed with the overall selfish nature of Americans. He would also be dissapointed in the way that democrats want to go about taxing us through the nose for the purpose of social welfare programs.

And correspondingly disappointed with the overall lack of response from His Church to take care of the poor so that no one would even feel a need for gov't run welfare programs. I can't speak for all churches or for every church that has nice facilities, but I've attended more than one that had spectacular facilities and expansive evangelism programs, but in the grand scheme of things did very little for the poor. It's like they were concerned about getting them saved and them being comfortable while at church, but nothing in between.

One church up here was building a huge new worship center with state of the art electronics and plush seating. They had plans to put in a huge aquarium in the lobby that would be built into the wall at a cost of about $50,000. They ended up scrapping that but not to spend it on helping the poor or anything. Just some other part of the facility.

I'm trying to imagine explaining to God one day why when I had a spare 50 G's laying around that the best I thing I could come up with was to spend it on a fish tank for my church lobby. Not 5 or 6 decent cars I could give to some folks who needed reliable transportation to hold down a good paying job, not toward perhaps starting a program to provide low cost childcare to help single moms get off welfare and be able to work and have their kids taken care of, not to start a job training or other teaching facility to help people learn to read, learn a usable job skill or retrain themselves. Nope. We really needed a fish tank.

Brother, you said a mouthful there.

Best piece of advice I ever heard?

"Never, ever join a church that has a gymnasium."

When I heard it, I took exception to it. But the longer I thought about it, the more sense it made.

[aumd03 2]

I think Jesus would be dissapointed with the overall selfish nature of Americans. He would also be dissapointed in the way that democrats want to go about taxing us through the nose for the purpose of social welfare programs.

And correspondingly disappointed with the overall lack of response from His Church to take care of the poor so that no one would even feel a need for gov't run welfare programs. I can't speak for all churches or for every church that has nice facilities, but I've attended more than one that had spectacular facilities and expansive evangelism programs, but in the grand scheme of things did very little for the poor. It's like they were concerned about getting them saved and them being comfortable while at church, but nothing in between.

One church up here was building a huge new worship center with state of the art electronics and plush seating. They had plans to put in a huge aquarium in the lobby that would be built into the wall at a cost of about $50,000. They ended up scrapping that but not to spend it on helping the poor or anything. Just some other part of the facility.

I'm trying to imagine explaining to God one day why when I had a spare 50 G's laying around that the best I thing I could come up with was to spend it on a fish tank for my church lobby. Not 5 or 6 decent cars I could give to some folks who needed reliable transportation to hold down a good paying job, not toward perhaps starting a program to provide low cost childcare to help single moms get off welfare and be able to work and have their kids taken care of, not to start a job training or other teaching facility to help people learn to read, learn a usable job skill or retrain themselves. Nope. We really needed a fish tank.

I tend to agree with the Jesus being disappointed part. But its not disappointed that hte republicans were in control. I think Bush was the one that wanted to initiate faith based programs. I don't think its the complete solution however. I think He would also be disappointed with a society that turns a blind eye and fails to resolve people getting themselves into bad situations. Most of our issues are a personal responsibility issues. I realize my perspective is skewed medically, but the main issues I deal with are obesity, substance abuse, and tobacco abuse. All these are personal issues, not ones of govt mandate. Sure programs can help, but until someone decides to change his ways, no govt program will help.

I agree Tex thats its poor stewardship to waste money on luxuries in a church. But I don't think a church should be plywood walls and cinder block benches. I have issues with churches getting themselves into enormous amounts of debt. I think many people would be surprised how many churches are up to their eyeballs in debt. I think that is poor stewardship as well.

I think Edwards also follows a different set of commandments however. For example, the 11th commandment. Thou shalt primp excessively with a compact before all interviews. And the proverb, Good hair is next to Godliness.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I'm pretty sure Jesus would be equally dissapointed in republicans. I mean what would he say about people using him to get into office...then doing nothing for his people?

[DKW 86 7,441]

I am sure JC would be equally disappointed in all of us. But I want to remind you guys of a post I had way back when: http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...&hl=outgive

Who's More Generous: Liberals or Conservatives?

Findings of Philanthropy Expert Are a Surprise, Especially to Himself

Sunday, October 29, 2006

By Frank Brieaddy

Staff writer

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, to be released next month, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance to two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, (Basic Books, $26) is due for release Nov. 24.

Arthur C. Brooks

Born: May 21, 1964, Spokane, Wash.

Early employment: French horn player with the Annapolis Brass Quintet and the Barcelona (Spain) Symphony Orchestra; professor of French horn, Lynn University, Boca Raton, Fla.

Education: B.A. in economics, Thomas Edison State College, Trenton, N.J.; M.A. in economics, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Fla.; master's and doctorate, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, Calif.

Academic appointments: Director of nonprofit studies, professor of public administration, Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and research director, William E. Smith Institute for Association Research; previously, assistant professor of public administration and economics, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Publications: Multiple academic journal and newspaper articles; regular op-ed contributor to The Wall Street Journal; "Social Entrepreneurship: A Modern Approach to Social Value Creation," published by Prentice-Hall.

Personal: Married; three children; lives in DeWitt.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Months before those words came off the press, news of his research reached the producers of ABC's "20/20," who filmed extensive interviews with Brooks to be aired next month in a one-hour special dealing with charity and philanthropy.

The fact that ABC will focus on the political, rather than cultural, aspects of his book frightens him less than the potential for a call from Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' hard-hitting conservative commentator.

"I can say no, if I want to," he said.

Wall Street Journal columnist

The truth, Brooks says, is that if an interview with O'Reilly means furthering his message that America needs more charity -- especially from those who call themselves liberal -- he'd probably do it.

For the record, Brooks has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

His describes his research as more cultural than political, but he's well aware of the political implications of his book.

"The New York Times Book Review, they're going to flatten me. I'm just dead," he said, adding that he thinks the Times pans any book perceived to be conservative. :headslap:

A representative of the Times said it has no plans to review the book.

Brooks has been showing up more and more on the radar screens of professionals and academics in the field of philanthropy since he was named director of nonprofit studies in 2003 for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

He has lectured in Spain and Russia and maintains a schedule of about 50 appearances a year at professional conferences across the country and around the world, including, recently, at the Thailand Ministry of Finance, the American Society of Association Executives and the Federal Bar Association.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him) and another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

He says the pieces are byproducts of his research and they serve his penchant for iconoclasm.

He explains, "My shtick, if I've got one, for The Wall Street Journal is, 'Everything you thought you knew is wrong.'"

"Arthur is a terrific op-ed writer," said Tunku Varadarajan, editorial page features editor for The Wall Street Journal. "His pieces are piquant and counterintuitive, and his arguments -- however provocative -- always have a foundation in fact and careful research. He is also capable of making a complex point in a mere 500 words, a rare skill in this verbose age in which we live."

Not counting the appendix, the book is 183 pages.

Conservatives give more

Brooks says he is a behavioral economist by training, who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact. He considers charity and philanthropy an important, fascinating and vastly under-researched field.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light. His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he expects and encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks says he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements. He writes that every tax dollar a nonprofit accepts "crowds out" 50 cents in voluntary contributions.

He merely mentions the balance between government and donated dollars for nonprofits, but does not address that balance.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000, "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Pablo Eisenberg, senior fellow at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute's Center for Nonprofit Leadership, said he's anxious to read Brooks' book, because he can't fathom the conclusions it draws.

Government spending for safety-net needs is absolutely essential and cannot possibly be replaced by philanthropy, he said, adding that he's leery about the huge sums dedicated to foundations by people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

He said the distribution of that money raises big issues about fairness which would be even greater if it was perceived as a replacement for government spending. He cited an article he did for the Chronicle of Philanthropy about 2,500 donors of $1 million or more which found that most of the money went to universities, medical institutions and museums.

"Only a handful gave any money to anti-poverty organizations, local community groups and social service organizations," he said.

Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, said Brooks is emerging as what academics call a public intellectual, an academic expert who becomes recognized and respected by the general public.

Lenkowsky, who has served in the administrations of the last three presidents, most recently as chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, is a colleague of Brooks who has not read his book, but is familiar with his research and findings.

"It's going to be one of the big books in philanthropy," he said.

He says its impact could be as great as that of Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam, who wrote the 2000 best-seller "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," setting off a national discussion about the decline of participation in group activities and its effect on society.

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

Once again, Conservative Christians in the US outgive everyone in the country in money, time, blood. America outgives every other country in the World.

I know preachers with Rolexes and Mercedes that just turn my own stomache. The fish tank story just did mine as well. The ornate Catholic and TBN type churches do so too. I fully agree with all of you guys here.

BUT, you have to remember that we still are more generous than anyone else. No doubt.

[AFTiger 282]

I'm pretty sure Jesus would be equally dissapointed in republicans. I mean what would he say about people using him to get into office...then doing nothing for his people?

Repbulicans don't normally campaign from church pulpits as do Democrats. Remember, it is Democrats they have removed God from the public forum and have made his worship a punishable offense.

You know, liberals are concerned with who recieves taxpayer money while conservatives are concerend with who has to pay the taxes.

Conservatives tend to give money to organizations that are most effective in ministering to the needy. Churches, regardless of fish tanks, do the most and provide the most. Churches tend to ask for a change in bad behavior while government programs merely subsidize bad behavior.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm pretty sure Jesus would be equally dissapointed in republicans. I mean what would he say about people using him to get into office...then doing nothing for his people?

Repbulicans don't normally campaign from church pulpits as do Democrats. Remember, it is Democrats they have removed God from the public forum and have made his worship a punishable offense.

Ummm...My BS detector just redlined on that one, AF. I've been to some fundamentalist churches that cheerfully brought in Republican candidates while not inviting anybody from the other side. Heck, Briarweird Presbyterian has brought in such Republican luminaries such as Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, etc. etc., without ever inviting somebody from the other side of the aisle. Oh, and can you say Jerry Falwell?

Sure you can knock the black churches all you want on this subject, and it's fair game. But don't sit there and claim innocence on the part of Republicans either.

I'm conservative to the point of being libertarian, and vote mostly Republican. I'm also a devout member of my church who attends twice a week and sits on the vestry. But politics does not belong in the pulpit.

By the way, there's hypocrisy wherever you look. No one has clean hands.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Would Jesus even know him. I mean how many lawyers do you think Jesus has ever met in heaven. hehehehe

What kind of Bible do you have?

John Edwards is about the only viable candidate the Democrats have.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Would Jesus even know him. I mean how many lawyers do you think Jesus has ever met in heaven. hehehehe

What kind of Bible do you have?

John Edwards is about the only viable candidate the Democrats have.

Sorry I didn't use an emoticon for you. The "hehehehe" denoted that I made a funny. You were supposed to laugh on cue. Unless, of course, you are a lawyer.

[GalensGhost 0]

I am VERY dissapointed in the Church's lack of outward reach to help the poor.

It seems like the MAJORITY of money in Churches is used for either building funds or mission work both home and abroad. Mission work is great, but it doesn't normally put food in mouths on a massive scale.

Sadly, the Church today seems to be more concerned with furthering its IMAGE rather than its CALLING.

I agree. Whatever happend to charity begins at home?

I live in a rather poor county. There are many people in this community who are in need. They lack basic necessities: Clothes, food, adequate shelter.

And yet every single year the Baptist church has fund-raisers to take mission trips to South America. My Methodist Church heads up in the hills to Kentucky or West Virginia for weeks to help out. That's wonderful and all, but I really wish that these well-meaning people would look out their doors and see the needs right here before they go traipsing off somewhere else so they can get their name in the paper.

Every time they drive past a dilapidated house here in this community on their way to build a house in Argentina or Appalachia I wonder if they remember that Bible verse from Matthew: "And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ "

[Tigermike 3,055]

“These politicians, when they can’t make politics pay, can always fall back on—the honorable practice of law.” —Will Rogers

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I'm pretty sure Jesus would be equally dissapointed in republicans. I mean what would he say about people using him to get into office...then doing nothing for his people?

Repbulicans don't normally campaign from church pulpits as do Democrats. Remember, it is Democrats they have removed God from the public forum and have made his worship a punishable offense.

Ummm...My BS detector just redlined on that one, AF. I've been to some fundamentalist churches that cheerfully brought in Republican candidates while not inviting anybody from the other side. Heck, Briarweird Presbyterian has brought in such Republican luminaries such as Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, etc. etc., without ever inviting somebody from the other side of the aisle. Oh, and can you say Jerry Falwell?

Sure you can knock the black churches all you want on this subject, and it's fair game. But don't sit there and claim innocence on the part of Republicans either.

I'm conservative to the point of being libertarian, and vote mostly Republican. I'm also a devout member of my church who attends twice a week and sits on the vestry. But politics does not belong in the pulpit.

By the way, there's hypocrisy wherever you look. No one has clean hands.

Well, not to mention that even when GOP candidates don't speak in churches, they speak at big conferences from major conservative Christian organizations like the National Religious Broadcasters, Focus on the Family and the like.