So, are you saying that God has no control over His world and that man's actions will change His plan? (I don't want to twist your words that's why I'm asking).
And what about the widow that married a gang banging husband and had five children by him and he died, does she deserve our help? What about the woman who married a man that died and now is unmarried but has another child. Should we help the legimately fatherless child and starve the other one? Basically what I'm saying is there are a variable of situations that exists and you cannot account for all of them by picking and chosing. Either you give or you don't it's your choice as it is mine. You would have a government out of control if you tried to chose each situation.
And further more, the guy did not mention welfare, you started that conversation. He said community based programs, which usually include such things as computer skills training, instructions on how to take an interview, babysitting assistance while you go on interviews, tutoring for needy children and food and clothing for the homeless. He said that because republicans want to gage this as leveling the playing field they view it as a racist action.
And I say be careful of using stats to justify your case for not giving to someone.
Of course you can account by picking and choosing, when the charity comes at the person-to-person level. That is why the government needs to be out of the wholesale charity business.
Then, it is up to us as individuals to aid those who we each feel deserving of our charity. Maybe I'll devote some income to a job training program while you give to a cancer hospice and someone else gives out quarters to winos. Far better that than the government taking our money and distributing it by some policy designed to garner votes in some congress critter's home district.
And further more, the guy did not mention welfare,
"[COGIC] ideas on government social programs and protecting the rights of minorities differ, Patterson said."
What is welfare but govt. social programs?
I never said or implied such. Quite a non sequitur, actually.
And what about... What about... Should we help the legimately fatherless child and starve the other one?
I repeat: the help given needs to be given cautiously lest irresponsible adults take advantage of it. How exactly you do this is totally dependent on the situation. Government welfare, history has shown, just can't achieve the necessary accountability.
Basically what I'm saying is there are a variable of situations that exists and you cannot account for all of them by picking and chosing.
Individuals and small organizations can. The government can't, or won't, and if they tried, you said it yourself:
You would have a government out of control if you tried to chose each situation.
Yep.
And further more, the guy did not mention welfare, you started that conversation. He said community based programs...
First of all, he DID mention government programs, which includes welfare. It's precisely the GOP's stance against these which provoked his slander regarding our supposed opposition to a "level playing field" -- which, by the way, already exists in every realm except where it counts the most -- individual behavior. Secondly, the tragic irony is that the community based programs they're talking about, are precisely the sort of thing convervatives support! They're acting conservative yet voting liberal. Very strange.
And I say be careful of using stats to justify your case for not giving to someone.
And I say, be careful of misrepresting people's position. Here's the correction: Not giving GOV'T WELFARE to someone. Get that clear. If someone is in need, I have no problem giving to them individually or through an accountable church situation.