Posted on 04/27/2015 12:25:47 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.
From Opposing Views:
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.’
I have mixed feelings about this.
One on hand, we are all well aware of the abuses in the system. Those abuses need to be dealt with in no uncertain terms.
On the other hand, I know people having to apply for and accept food stamps. It is usually as a last resort. More often than not the need is precipitated by a life crisis. The last thing someone needs after losing a job, depleting their savings and worrying about how to put food on the table is the indignity of having to prove they are not users.
I’ve been watching the media report proposals as fact for about 30 years now.
your post is incoherent
what are you trying to say?
What percentage of those abuses are related to drug use? I suspect not much, so this won't do much of anything to halt what fraud there is in the system.
What is incoherent about it. I detect that you do not want to allow for anything contrary to the view you have espoused.
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.