America's getting hammered in the comments section.
One thing I have NEVER understood -- why does the Church support as "charity" the practice of using the force of government to take people's money to apply it to government-approved "charity"?
It seems to me that that damages the Church in two ways.
First, it takes away from the Church any discretion in how charity is applied. Just look at how Obama has dissed the Church on matters of abortion, conscience clause, etc. If the money were going through the Church instead of the government, the Church actually would have a say in how it was spent. As it is, they just hope the government spends it wisely - often it doesn't.
Second, it discourages members from contributing directly to the Church. If the government is already taking half your paycheck in various taxes, fees, etc., there isn't that much left to give to the Building Fund or St. Vincent de Paul.
Seems to me that the Church is cutting its own throat every time it supports the "social action" instituted by the likes of Sinator Ted.
I think I can explain it. Years and years ago, I saw a documentary about the campaigns and presidencies of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. What caught my attention was the discussion of the rise of social welfare in the country. In short, the argument was made to the public that "if church charity can help more people than personal charity, then a national charity (welfare) should be even more effective at eradicating poverty and hunger because the Federal government's tax coffers are larger than any church collection plate".
FWIW, I have never very few people in my lifetime who do not believe this argument at some level. They naively view our government as neutral and therefore not hostile to Christianity. They believe that, as long as the government is trying to achieve the same end (helping the poor/hungry), Christians should not be criticizing the government for it's welfare programs (i.e. should consider their taxes paid equal to money dropped into the church collection plate).