[A_perfect_lady]

Neither of us has shown anything, FRiend, that's the point. Jesus was not American. He had no concept of the separation of church and state, no concept of a government that doles out largess to the poor, no concept of a republic based on a Constitution run by officials democratically elected... he is pretty much irrelevant on a political level.

That's the point the atheist makes that started this whole debate: your messiah is not a poster boy for either Left or Right (although most of his quotes work better for them than for us.) If you want to take him as your personal guide in life, go ahead.

But don't bother trying to use anything about him to prove he would have opposed the government helping the poor. That suggests that the poor only exist to give you a chance to show your worthiness... that helping them is secondary to making sure you help them in the right spirit. I think it's pretty nonsensical to hold that Jesus would rather they go without than get help in a way you disapprove of.

Because that is what you are saying: Jesus would have rather they starved than you be coerced.

[reasonisfaith]

What Jesus wants is for us to choose righteousness. In fact, this includes his teaching that we should choose poverty. Thus, simply handing things of material value over to the poor, for the rest of their life so that they remain in poverty, is not what he wants. He cares about what’s in our heart, and the government forcing us at gunpoint to give poverty level alms to the poor is the opposite of what Jesus wants.

I’ll clarify for you what my point has been:

Atheism provides for no ultimate objective source of individual sovereignty.

The only version of individual sovereignty available to atheism is the subjective kind, which makes it no different, ultimately, from any form of liberalism.