The Saddleback Forum
In the recent candidate forum hosted by Rev. Rick Warren, Sens. McCain and Obama were both asked about America's greatest moral failure. Sen. Obama's answer was particularly enlightening and gives another indication that he is on the All Leftwing Squad. He said:
"I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that 'whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.'… That basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to…not having - not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class."
So, what does this passage from Matthew 25 mean? It's Christ's call to us as individuals to help the poor. What does Sen. Obama mean? He wants us to pass off the duty of helping the poor to the government. Pay your taxes and move on. Let the "caring" professionals in government do the rest.
Sorry, but Sen. Obama has it all wrong. Christ did not die on the cross so that we could simply pay our taxes and leave the poor to the tender mercies of social workers.
Furthermore the socioeconomic realities of most of human history are very different than the modern U.S.. If you were born poor, the world did its best to make your life miserable and short. If are born poor in the U.S….well for one thing you are poor only by relative standards. Compared to much of the rest of the world you are in great shape. Remember, the problem among American poor is obesity not malnutrition. For another if you are poor in the U.S. the tools for success are available. You have free schooling available. There are antidiscrimination laws. There is a free market that rewards hard work.
If Sen. Obama really wants to see Matthew 25 put into action, he would actually get government out of the social services businesses. Let the churches and those called by Christ to help the poor do it for less money and with more success.
Also, I find it ironic that someone who is pro-choice cite "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me" as a policy criticism. Where's the logic in that?