Posted on 04/27/2015 12:53:16 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
But when you take a look at the organizations these religious leaders represent, you’ll see that these religious types are political progressives who’re using the cover of religion for their political activism. The websites of these organizations who oppose Walker’s drug-testing legislation all, in some form or another, uses words or phrases immediately identifiable with progressive- rather than religious- causes. Such terms and phrases found were “social” and “economic” justice, “peacemaking,” “solidarity,” and “human community”; “restorative justice,” “united for justice.” One website even had a “living wage campaign” and “resources for justice seekers.”
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recently proposed a policy that would impose mandatory drug testing for people who received certain types of government aid. The policy makes sense- if someone is going to receive welfare benefits and other forms of government aid, government gets to set the parameters and prerequisites that qualify or disqualify people from receiving such benefits.
But so-called religious leaders in Wisconsin released a letter saying that they’re against Gov. Walker’s proposal because they claim that subjecting beneficiaries of government-provided welfare unfairly stigmatizes the poor.
“In our respective religious traditions poverty and joblessness are not indicators of bad character,” the letter read, addressing Walker’s proposal to drug test recipients of FoodShare, BadgerCare Plus health care and Unemployment Insurance programs. “We do not believe it is just to craft policies that punish those who face these trials while also suffering from the illness of addiction. Nor is it fair to treat those who seek employment, health and nutritional assistance differently than those who need financial help with educational costs, starting a business or obtaining child care.”
Actually, drug testing these recipients isn’t punishment because testing them might be the difference between welfare recipients ending their “illness of addiction” and that illness killing them.
“Drug abuse occurs at all income levels,” the letter stated. “Tying drug testing only to certain forms of public assistance unjustly holds those applicants to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of us.”
“All of our faith traditions teach that human beings are made in the image of God and need to be treated with dignity,” Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, the head of Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice, said. “When you subject people to these shaming procedures that have no efficacy … its only purpose is to shame the poor. That robs people of their dignity and inner godliness. We’re putting up barriers that are keeping people hungry and in poverty, and not addressing their needs.”
Signatories of this letter include Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee, the Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice, and the Wisconsin Council of Churches.
Requiring welfare recipients to prove they’re not on drugs isn’t discriminating against or stigmatizing the poor. It’s a trade off that beneficiaries are subjected to as a result of receiving welfare. If they don’t want to be drug tested, then they have to find another form of sustenance. If they need government assistance, they won’t use drugs. It really is that simple.
That said, this letter signed by these “religious leaders” is ridiculous. Saying that “religious leaders” are against Gov. Walker’s proposition is intentionally misleading. “Religious leaders” or as the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel puts it, “A broad coalition of religious organizations representing thousands of Wisconsin congregations” is made to sound as if most, if not all, religious leaders in the state of Wisconsin are against Gov. Walker’s proposed legislation, and that he is on the wrong side of morality.
But when you take a look at the organizations these religious leaders represent, you’ll see that these religious types are political progressives who’re using the cover of religion for their political activism. The websites of these organizations who oppose Walker’s drug-testing legislation all, in some form or another, uses words or phrases immediately identifiable with progressive- rather than religious- causes. Such terms and phrases found were “social” and “economic” justice, “peacemaking,” “solidarity,” and “human community”; “restorative justice,” “united for justice.” One website even had a “living wage campaign” and “resources for justice seekers.”
So there’s no “broad coalition” of religious leaders. It’s a coalition of groups represented by people who’ve attempted to synthesize leftism with a watered-down version of religion that opposes Walker’s proposal.
Further, the notion that in their, “… respective religious traditions poverty and joblessness are not indicators of bad character” is a lie and is a very clear case that the Bible isn’t their guide book. The Old Testament, which both Jews and Christians revere is peppered with verses that indicate some forms of poverty are a result of bad character and bad habits like sloth, lack of wisdom, daydreaming and scheming. Proverbs 6:10-11 says that poverty comes from too much relaxation and sleep; Proverbs 10:4 says poverty is a result of being lazy; Proverbs 13:18 says that poverty results from a lack of discipline; Proverbs 21:5 says poverty results from hasty rather than diligent decision making. If that’s not enough look at Proverbs 21:17, 24:33-34, and 28:19- among many others- to see that though all poverty isn’t the result of bad character traits, some of it most definitely is.
Most people agree that there should be some form of an economic social safety net for those who’re in need. But there should also be standards set and enforced for those seeking benefits. Proving one isn’t on drugs is an obvious one. That so-called religious leaders are trying to thwart the implementation of Gov. Walker’s legislation is in my opinion a clear case of what low regard progressives (political or religious) have for the very people they claim to help. What these religious fakes are actually saying is that by simply being in an economic underclass- for however long- trumps one’s ability to resist the temptation of using drugs. In other words- they’re poor and can’t help it.
For progressives it’s always about class and never about the intrinsic value of the people in the varying economic classes they hold in contempt. So much for ‘justice.’
Ok, but we are going to need a lot more prisons and foster homes.
THE primary, and perhaps only, reason the left insists on the gov’t implementing charity is so that none of this “judgment” of behavior happens.
Private charities MUST make sure that they are not wasting resources.
Gov’t just points the gun in people’s faces and demands more.
In the short run, perhaps.
People adjusted their behavior toward sloth and drunkeness when the consequences for such were alleviated,
they’ll adjust away from that behavior when the consequences have to be personally borne, however.
Post #9.
“...Walker committed to drug testing recipients of BadgerCare Plus health coverage and also pledged free treatment and job training for those testing positive for drugs.”
Bump to Post #24.
“We’re putting up barriers that are keeping people hungry and in poverty, and not addressing their needs.”
If your pride is so high that you are too insulted to take a drug test — in other words, if your pride is bigger than your need for food — then you have chosen to go hungry.
Not only that. If you "owned" your retirement, you'd be able to decide whether to spend it or leave it as a legacy to your children/grandchildren.
My parents paid an enormous amount in Social Security over the course of their lifetimes, but both died young, never having an opportunity to recoup that "investment" or choosing to spend it in a wild spree once they learned they were terminally ill.
In the Army I had to p** in the bottle on demand, often every month. If our soldiers have to do it while risking their lives, then the welfare cheats should d@mn well have to do so.
As for all Federal employees & elected officials, absolutely they should! GWB’s attorney general John Ashcroft took a drug test as his first official act, and liberals howled in outrage.
I remember reading here that a federal court struck down a drug test requirement for welfare in Florida(?).
Don’t you have to have a mind to lose? I was always under the impression that the average liberal had no mind.
Good point, but not that big of difference.
Conservatives who support this aren’t thinking far ahead. Once the precedent has been set that the government can require recipients of government programs to waive their constitutional rights—in this case, Fourth Amendment rights—there’s no telling where this thing will go. They could require, for example, people to waive their Second Amendment rights to have their children in the public schools. Don’t like it? Don’t use the schools. For that matter, the sidewalks are owned by the government, too. Lets just ban gun possession there. After all, all you have to do to keep your rights intact is not use the sidewalk.
And while we’re at it, let’s test granny on Social Security. It’s true that she payed into the SS fund, but most people on NA have jobs and pay taxes too—they qualify because their jobs don’t pay enough to live on. Money is fungible and the fact that the money NA users pay into the general fund isn’t earmarked for that specific purpose like OASDI is means nothing.
Just a few thoughts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.