[Quix]

I too would prefer to preserve the Republic.

But I'd prefer that the poor get helped by churches acting more like The Body of Christ as they are SUPPOSED to.

And, I'd almost like to see voting tied to some minimal IQ test; civid affairs test; honorable behavior test and maybe even a minimal discernment test.

But then I hate government testing citizens.

[DannyTN]

"And, I'd almost like to see voting tied to some minimal IQ test"

Yeah, almost. If I didn't think they would skew the test and use it to discriminate against conservatives or particular viewpoints, I'd agree.

I don't like get out the vote campaigns for the same reason. If people aren't aware of the issues or the how the candidate stands, don't vote just to be voting!

[DannyTN]

"But I'd prefer that the poor get helped by churches acting more like The Body of Christ as they are SUPPOSED to. "

I understand the viewpoint. But I'm not convinced that the bibical directive is for ONLY the body of Christ to help the poor and to for the body of Christ to ONLY use non-governmental means. Especially in light of some of the verses I've posted or the story of Joseph or the way that God directed Israel to help the poor in Leviticus using both a portion of the tithe as well as more direct help.

In fact, to use ONLY non-governmental sources to help them does several things...

• It subjects the poor to the level of generosity of the local community which in times of regional economic distress could dry up.
• Rather than insuring a minimal level of support, it subjects the poor to the generosity of the body of Christ. If you know what percent of your local church actually tithes, you will understand the concern. Too many of our members are immature. I suppose the church's increasing our direct responsibility may help the church mature, but I'm not convinced of it. Especially in light of the way the founding fathers considered it.
• I suspect that some of those advocating the church only view are not Christians and would therefore be relieved at making voluntary any contribution to what the founding fathers considered a "civil" duty
• Unless the church develops a tracking system, it subjects the church to abuse as some have been known to seek support from multiple churches and be abusive of the church's generosity in that manner. But such a tracking system in private hands would itself be subject to abuse.
• In some ways, the government is in a position to more evenly decide the matter and weigh who is poor and who is not.
• Nor am I convinced that all ministers should be entrusted with care for the poor without oversight. For there are some who set themselves up in the ministry who are neither Christian nor act like it.

• There is a part of me that says the Poor could be forced to receive spiritual instruction if only the church administered aid to the Poor.
• But then which church? Should I subject them to Jehovah's Witness which denies the Diety of Christ or Mormons with their multiple Gods and visions of Godhood. The fact is some of the cults have a legalistic approach that beats the real church in it's generosity although the motive is clearly wrong.

One of the questions I have in the matter is why did the founding fathers consider it a "civil" duty and provide Poor Laws for each of the states, rather than consider it solely a church function.

I know it dates back to at least the 13th century following the English Poor Laws when the State and the Church were combined.

If Kings were instructed to have mercy towards the poor and to consider the cause of the poor and needy, then how is it that when Christians are empowered with the government, a government of the people, they believe they should not use governmental power in this manner?

If the founding fathers at a time when Christianity was much more prevalent didn't rely solely on the church but rather considered it a civil duty, I'm really hesitant to accept the claim that now that a lower percent claim and practice Christianity, we should change.