Romney and the politics of the poor
Mitt Romney’s not a bad man. He just sounds like it sometimes.
Like when he says, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Does he kick beggars? Of course not. He was talking about where he would focus his efforts for economic recovery (see video clip below):
“I’m not concerned about the very poor. There’s a safety net there, and if it needs repair I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the heart of America, the 95 percent of Americans who are right now struggling.”
But how could the frontrunner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination allow those words in any context to come out of his mouth in public? Are the poor an abstraction to him, people he just doesn’t think about much at all? But whether the poor are 5 percent of the population, as he suggested, or 15 percent as the Census Bureau would have us believe, they are a pressing moral issue for anyone who holds responsibility for government.
In a fallen world, God establishes government to protect us against each other, but especially the weak against the strong. Thus, an important part of the job for anyone in government is to defend the poor. The biblical writers often show a special concern for them, in particular that rulers guard the poor against those who would take advantage of their vulnerability (“devour” them, Proverbs 30:14) and ensure their fair treatment in court (Exodus 23:6).
By contrast, Gov. Romney, like most Republicans and virtually all Democrats, thinks the poor are no longer his concern once they have a state-provided system of properly functioning “safety nets.” But the problem with safety nets is they often become either hammocks or snares. Too many people don’t bounce out of them and onto their feet. They take up multigenerational residency in them, and those safety nets are administered by masses of bureaucrats who are happy to keep these people as clients indefinitely. Government provides more effectively for the poor when it protects their ability to provide for themselves, ensuring a genuinely fair process and securing stable communities.
Interestingly, God, who calls rulers His servants (Romans 13), says nothing about government safety nets. The Bible exhorts people instead to private charity. People are to lend and give freely to a neighbor who falls into poverty (Deuteronomy15:7-11). Many passages instruct people not to harvest too thoroughly so that the poor can glean for themselves what was left behind (Deuteronomy 24:19-22; Isaiah 3:14). This was private charity, but it required hard work from anyone who wanted to receive it. The Apostle Paul cautioned churches to reserve diaconal support only for the truly helpless (1 Timothy 5:3-16).
The Republicans should make a point not only of leaving the middle class alone but also of guarding the poor against the powerful (including against their friends in Congress). They will have a winning strategy for electoral victory from now until kingdom come. On many levels it is unwise not to care about the poor.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top67 Comments to “Romney and the politics of the poor”
I’m coming to grips with the idea that Mitt will be the Rep. nominee. So I will chalk-up his phrasing of words as a growing experience. I and everyone else understood what he meant. He just should of worded it better.
Report comment to moderator
What’s sad it looks like this election is just going to bring out more tensions between black and white evangelicals. No matter what he says, Romney is not going to get much of the black vote, but with comments like these, he’s setting up African Americans to absolutely hate him. Its a given that the vast majority of white evangelicals will reluctantly support Romney this November. And therr black brothers will be sure to tell them “How can you vote for a heretic who does not care about the poor” over Obama. Especially since its very unlikely that Romney will make abortion an issue.
Report comment to moderator
Romney made it clear in that statement that the poor are reasonably taken care of by the existing government safety net. Further, if there are any holes in that net, he would be glad to fix them.
He ,also, made clear that he is not concerned about the wealthy, as they are well able to take care of themselves.
He wants to focus on the middle class whom he judges to be the most hurt by the present economy.
The liberals think they can make political hay with this, though most voters understand what he was trying to say.
Report comment to moderator
ROMONEY needs to hire someone to teach him what NOT to say.
Obama is always talking about his support of the middle class.
Not a word of what Obama says is true, but he convinces all the people who believe they are “middle class” to vote for him.
And that is ALL THAT MATTERS.
Report comment to moderator
Does middle-class America have jobs? No!
Does middle-class America continue to lose their homes? Yes!
That’s ok, because it’s still not his fault. Just ask them.
If Obama can convince the media to work on a campaign for him to remain as Pres. for a 3rd term, a lot of koolaid drinkers will be pleased.
Report comment to moderator
Clearly Mr Romney is not a christian, but one also needs to discern the profession of our current president. Would one who loves the Lord so blatantly disregard His revealed will in supporting such policies as abortion and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda? Regarding his so-called concern for the poor, if Mr Obama truly wanted to help (without hurting them with handouts) he would get the government out of the way as much as possible and turn over care for the poor to the communities and churches (would he answer the call?)
Report comment to moderator
If O wins the next 4 years, he will have 4 more years to create a crisis that will convince Congress to keep him as Pres.
Did anyone else notice that DC seems to be unusually QUIET?
Report comment to moderator
There has been a push for more people to be on FOOD STAMPS.
And a push to have more gov’t intervention in the schools to make sure those students are on the FREE MEALS program–which right now is breakfast and lunch.
I’m not saying the program is bad, just saying it shouldn’t be for people who really don’t need it but have been convinced they should take advantage of the system.
There are people who call churches they think have large incomes and DEMAND stuff like money to pay their rent.
Report comment to moderator
When I was young my grandfather used to walk down to the grocery store pulling a little wagon and get free expired food that was being thrown out in the back of the store, UNTIL THE GOV’T shut that down. But they never got food stamps. I guess you just didn’t do that back then–50’s and 60’s.
He and grandma lived on S.S.
Report comment to moderator
I CANNOT see Romney beating Obama.
Will there be a write-in campaign for Ron Paul?
My Progressive brother seems to be a Ron Paul guy.
(My brother hates war worse than abortion.)
Report comment to moderator
I don’t care for Obama, but World would be somewhat remiss (sp?) if it didn’t have a blog about the jobs report.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM, Obama’s economic policies have little to do with today’s favorable jobs report. It has mostly to do with the private economy struggling forward notwithstanding Obama’s lackluster economic policies.
Report comment to moderator
Because he believes them.
Romney believes the existing safety net for the poor is generally sufficient (though he does say he’d “repair” it where needed), and that puts them in a category with the very rich as people who have it made.
Yes.
“Would have us believe”?
Is this the old Fox News line “they have refrigerators and air conditioners, how bad off can they really be?”
Or is it just that general conservative distrust of statistics and expert opinion as tools of the liberal agenda?
God has much to say about Israel’s “government safety net” in the Old Testament. You quote some of the very passages, from Deuteronomy (Greek: “second law”), and then say it’s just private charity.
Let me put it this way: in the only government God ever directly established laws for, God Himself mandated, in a book of the law, a “safety net” for the poor.
But are you trying to forge a biblical justification for your economic theories arguing from the absence of something in one particular passage of the Bible? A passage, I might add, written to the Church, and not written to political philosophers as a treatise?
Because Romans 13 also says nothing about armies, navies, highways, voting rights, public works projects, prisons, schools, and a great many other things. Their absence from Romans 13 in no way implies that God does not want governments to be concerned with them.
Report comment to moderator
SAILS
It makes no difference if Obama has anything to do with it or not. Its a good thing and should be reported even if it makes him look good.
Report comment to moderator
Romney likes class warfare like anyone else. If the safety net is there and is adequate for the poor then I suppose it should catch anyone who falls from the upper or middle class as well or does each class get its own safety net?
Report comment to moderator
Romney didn’t say the poor are doing just fine; he said the wealthy are doing fine.
Romney is not an uncaring person who “kicks beggars,” as a look at his life will reveal. He donates quite a bit of money to charity, and he appears to have a lot of integrity in his personal and family life, both of which suggest that he is relatively a good moral person.
But he has to watch how he says things; he can’t have too many of these gaffes that can be cropped to produce a damaging, though misleading, soundbite. He’s already had a couple.
Report comment to moderator
The ‘good’ jobs report, as reported by the controlled media, is basically just Leftwing propaganda, akin to the standard old Soviet press release from yesteryear, detailing invariably ‘phenomenal’ progress toward meeting the latest Five Year Plan economic targets.
Did deeper into (even) places like the CNN money pages and you see a completely different storyline:
See
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/03/santelli_12_million_fall_out_of_labor_force_as_participation_rate_hits_20-year_low.html
The situation is dire, and the media and the politicos in D.C. are pulling out all stops to keep the populace quiet about the fact that the emperor has no clothes.
As in the State-media mantra that ‘inflation is under control’ – when fuel and food costs are deliberately taken out of government inflation stats, in order to keep the serfs confused – while the noose is tightened around our necks every day.
Report comment to moderator
But if this is the way they have been reporting job growth every year then it really isn’t any different than any other year.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y: But he has to watch how he says things; he can’t have too many of these gaffes that can be cropped to produce a damaging, though misleading, soundbite.
Anything can be taken out of context and cropped to produce a damaging, though misleading, soundbite. Remember a few months ago there was an ad featuring Obama from the 2008 campaign saying “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”
In reality, Obama had been quoting something that the McCain campaign had said. He wasn’t saying it with regard to his own campaign.
When the candidate who ran the ad was called on it, his spokeswoman insisted they were just holding Obama to account for his own words — never mind that they had completely misrepresented the meaning of those words.
Who was it that ran that ad? Oh yeah. Mitt Romney.
Report comment to moderator
Even his explanation falls short because the President should not be picking groups and labeling them (even as large as the “Middle Class”) for particular special treatment or concern–at least not as a rule. He needs to focus on justice and equal treatment and concern for all.
But politicians and their wives are well known for gaffs like this. Hillary Clinton scorned those moms who stay home backing cookies and the storm passed. Michelle Obama twice spoke of being “proud of her country for the first time” when her husband was nominated, and both of her gaffs passed quickly.
But it may not pass quickly for Romney because the mainstream media worship Obama religiously and will do ANYthing to get him re-elected.
Report comment to moderator
The statistics are meaningless.
There will always be a bottom 5%, a bottom 10%, and a bottom 15%.
If you want to, you can say that 50% of people are rich, and 50% of people are poor.
—–
The fact that people misunderstand Romney’s words is a huge indictment against our society. Is it public education? Is it willful obtuseness? Is it political craftiness?
I think a lot of people should voluntarily not vote, since they are too stupid to listen to what people say in context and with their brains engaged.
Report comment to moderator
“Even his explanation falls short because the President should not be picking groups and labeling them (even as large as the “Middle Class”) for particular special treatment or concern–at least not as a rule.”
Wow! That is exactly what Ron Paul believes. He does not believe that government should favor any individual or group but that we should all have equal opportunity on a level playing field.
Maybe Ron Paul is your candidate, after all.
Report comment to moderator
I should have attributed the quotation in #22.
It was Joel Mark in #20.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is not always wrong! Smile.
Go Rick!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
ABC is traveling the country to find Made in USA products. (People are going online to tell them about companies.)
They are trying to drum up business for these companies and talking about these companies hiring more people when more people buy from them.
I hope they are also getting information from these companies about what Obama policies are doing to keep them from hiring. They may not report it, but hopefully they are learning something. Unless of course they are drinking the O koolaid, then it will be selective hearing.
Report comment to moderator
Will there be a write-in campaign for Ron Paul?
Report comment to moderator
“Interestingly, God, who calls rulers His servants (Romans 13), says nothing about government safety nets…”
———-
And nothing about using concrete in the use of highway construction…
…so it must be wrong.
:-O
Report comment to moderator
ABC always drinks the left’s kool-aid.
Report comment to moderator
Care and Compassion for the poor is not the responsibility or duty of government first. One’s family, faith group and local community have the direct first responsibility for the poor, homeless, orphan, sick and lonely. Government is much too impersonal to understand the needs and individual concerns for each person. Just giving money, as does government, solves nothing and only routes money into administration and not directly to need. Government needs to get out of the way and give the money back to families, faith and community where it will do the most good for all of their people.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that governments are too far removed from situations of poverty to understand the true needs. However, why did governments get involved in the first place? Because churches and individuals were failing to do what was needed. I would feel better about government abdicating responsibility for the destitute if about once every couple of months, every pastor in every church preached a blistering sermon from a passage like Matthew 25:31-46. We humans are too inclined to forget what is not always before us and need regular reminders.
Report comment to moderator
“….One’s family, faith group and local community have the direct first responsibility for the poor, homeless, orphan, sick and lonely…”
—–
Yeah. They’ll get right on it.
Either way, be sure the “red tape” will come in case lots.
Report comment to moderator
“And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.” (1Ti 6:8)
That would probably free up some cash for others.*
Maybe some church folks would say, “No wonder Paul goes for the ‘food and raiment’ plan….he doesn’t work hard enough. Get a real job, Paul!!”
Or like Job of old, “Get a job, Job!!, and you wouldn’t be so j.o.b. (just over broke).
—-
* (Of course, dollars for 401k’s, health insurance, college kids faculty members (oops, I mean classes), cars and tv’s, would take a hit.)
Report comment to moderator
Occasionally we see candidates as they really are. When Obama flubs his lines you hear things like “typical white people with their guns and religion”. When Rick Perry forgets his lines you hear crickets chirping. Mitt Romney speaks like this is because he isn’t really a conservative.
A prosperous economy means everyone can do better. Liberalism divides society into classes and calls on government to penalize the successful and dole out benefits to those who are not. Romney is playing class-warfare because he is a liberal. It is what liberals do.
Report comment to moderator
Romney has a problem;
“I don’t care about very poor” ~Mitt Romney
“I love to fire people” ~Mitt Romney
“Corporations are people” ~Mitt Romney
“Let the housing market hit rock bottom” ~Mitt Romney
“Obama made the recession worse” ~Mitt Romney
For those who believe the last statement, even Romeny has admitted that its not true as job losses decreased under Obama and within two years there was job growth.
Report comment to moderator
I’m hoping that Santorum can find a way to stop Romney; however, should he be nominated, he would make a far better president than the present disaster occupying the White House. Those adamant conservative anti-Romney folk, who won’t vote for him ever could be shooting themselves in the foot.
Report comment to moderator
#34 HRW – All of those statements, except for the last one, are taken out of context. It is the mob mentality of the left to twist statements and chant them over and over to get the mob riled up. “Hey, hey, ho, ho …”
The interesting thing about the recession is to watch Obama do everything he possibly can to make things worse and yet to take credit when they happen to improve anyway.
For example, he takes credit for decreased reliance on foreign oil, but that was because of reduced demand. He says he increased oil production, when in reality oil on public land decreased. It increased despite his crushing regulations.
But facts don’t matter to the mob and this is why I think Obama will win. He has laundered billions into his own coffers by kickbacks to his cronies which he will use to rile up the crowds with lies. And that is pretty much all a person needs to win an American election.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: #34 HRW – All of those statements, except for the last one, are taken out of context. It is the mob mentality of the left to twist statements and chant them over and over to get the mob riled up.
Look bub … last year the Romney campaign had an ad with a video snippet of Obama from the 2008 campaign saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”
It was quickly revealed that what Obama had REALLY said was that someone from the McCain campaign had said this. Romney’s team edited the clip to make it look like Obama was saying it about himself.
Before you complain about Romney being taken out of context now, you first should acknowledge that he did it first. But you won’t do that because you want to believe it’s only the left that does such things.
Report comment to moderator
The interesting thing about the recession is to watch Obama do everything he possibly can to make things worse and yet to take credit when they happen to improve anyway.
Reminds me of Krugman’s critics — “Yes, all Krugman’s predictions came true but he’s still wrong”
The essential fact is the economy improved on his watch.
Report comment to moderator
What did we get from Obama? Dodd-Frank. Not the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall. Too big to fail still exists and we’ll be bailing out big banks until we go bust. The country is becoming Greece.
Report comment to moderator
Obama has a problem. You can’t invoke WWJD at the National Prayer breakfast, then insist Catholics entities do acts against their conscience — and if I were Romney, I’d call him on it.
Report comment to moderator
NJL — considering the Republicans attempted to block Dodd-Frank I don’t think a Republican administration or Congress will reinstate Glass-Steagall, which I agree is and continues to be unfortunate.
Report comment to moderator
My wife commented that Obama may be little worse than another wimpy Republican. She said, “some of our best candidates seem to be waiting for 2016, but what if that is too late?” I told her not to worry since it was already too late.
Report comment to moderator
The frogs are already boiled … we just don’t realize it yet.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, You are correct. The interesting thing for me is to see which nations God will lift up as the US takes itself down.
Report comment to moderator
And we’re the frogs.
Report comment to moderator
I d have blocked Dodd-Frank, too. It didn’t do anything but cause bank fees to go up.
Why does the Left always go back to what the Rs did rather than admit that their guy didn’t do what should have been done. This was a DEM congress that did Dodd-Frank. If Obama had the country’s interest at heart — he would have used his veto. He didn’t. I stand by blaming him for that. He’s responsible for that.
Report comment to moderator
Even one of their own, Dorgan, signed on to Dodd-Frank because he said it did something — but he’s also said it didn’t do what needed to be done.
Report comment to moderator
#31: “….One’s family, faith group and local community have the direct first responsibility for the poor, homeless, orphan, sick and lonely…”
—–
Yeah. They’ll get right on it.
Either way, be sure the “red tape” will come in case lots.
Mytoosense, exactly.
Report comment to moderator
Most people get a 30 year mortgage on their house.
Why doesn’t the US get a 30 year mortgage on its debt. Pay it off in 30 years.
The US doesn’t have a paid off house to get a reverse mortgage on. We will have to only spend what we take in in taxes. And pay off our mortgage from our income, taxes.
This is all so simple.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Tom:
Care and Compassion for the poor is not the responsibility or duty of government first.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with you. And when some disaster befalls your community, they all, through the government will provide help which you and your community cannot.
Government is much too impersonal to understand the needs and individual concerns for each person.
But you in your infinite wisdom are?
Just giving money, as does government, solves nothing
Tell that to the mother with hungry kids. Go peddle that drivel to the first moron you find.
Government needs to get out of the way and give the money back to families, faith and community where it will do the most good for all of their people.
Here we go, Pastor Tom is really just looking for his own government handout so HE can decide who gets help, who is naughty or nice, or who is a real Christian “Brother” he or his church should keep.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
If you look at our disasters you will see that private charities provided by far the most help. And the gummit’s ‘help’ was largely unhelpful.
Report comment to moderator
Oops! Arcadia not Conan. Sorry Conan.
Report comment to moderator
If a politican is not “concerned about the very poor”, this could bode well for the very poor. Their greatest need and hope lies in losing their pitiful reliance and dependency on powerful politicans and and gaining more confidence in themselves, their families, their churches and local communities.
The very poor need to be resuced from politicans who say they are concerned about them but just use that pretense to live off the wealth and work of others and make the gov’t bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger without reall making life better for the poor (whom they falsely claim to care for).
Report comment to moderator
PHOS (@ #30) wrote; “…why did governments get involved in the first place? Because churches and individuals were failing to do what was needed.”
I generally disagree.
I don’t know what kind of church PHOS goes to and I don’t know why he/she is unaware of what so many churches ARE doing to help the needy. But the fact that ALL the needy everywhere are not rescued from their need is not a fair indictment of those who actually ARE doing what they can to help them. Need will ALWAYS be a part of life regardless of what churches or governments do. That is no reason to criticize those who are stepping up to do something that is real and beneficial–even if it is on a small local scale.
The problem is that all the talk about government having to step up where others are not is that all government really ends up doing is getting bigger and bigger and more and more powerful on the pretense of caring for the poor. I think they would be better off if they stopped trusting opportunist politicians who claim to care for them.
Report comment to moderator
JM @54: Mine was an historical criticism. Most social safety nets were put in place during the early part of the 1900’s. They were a response to the horrific conditions in working class neighbourhoods. Such conditions were primarily ignored by those who were more fortunate, most of whom were at least nominal churchgoers. Many churches do currently do some good work; however, sadly, I have witnessed the same apathy, even predjudice, within some of the churches I have attended and I have never heard a sermon on the Scripture passage that I mentioned at #30. You speak from your experience, and I speak from mine.
Report comment to moderator
The needy exist. Always have. Why blame Christians first? They are the ones doing the most for the needy even though it is never enough.
The ones doing the most good usually get the most blame.
Report comment to moderator
PHOS’s was a historical criticism, with which I agree, though I don’t have numbers for support. The phenomenon has been referred to as The Great Reversal.
Report comment to moderator
A Reagan quote on his birthday:
* “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” Ronald Reagan at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston, Texas, citing a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln. While I have not confirmed if or where Lincoln said this, it does reflect Reagan’s well-founded conviction.
Happy Birthday to Reagan:
http://www.solliday.org/
Report comment to moderator
A good thought:
Crystal Lewis
Report comment to moderator
Dream on Conan.
Report comment to moderator
“#34 HRW – All of those statements, except for the last one, are taken out of context.”
Irrelevant. A man competent to be President should be smart enough, and agile enough verbally on his feet (to mix a metaphor rather badly) to realize that those words, in that combination, should not be uttered in any context.
I don’t believe that Romney gets a kick out of firing people for the fun of it, that he isn’t concerns about the poor, or any of those things. I do believe that it’s a bad thing that he can’t form a sentence without saying things that no one under the microscope he’s under, should say in public, in any context.
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFaze: If by ‘dream on’ you mean I should forget about hoping that today’s evangelicals will once again take seriously Jesus’s words about the poor, marginalized and downtrodden, and forsake their veneration of wealth and courting of power, I fear you’re right.
Report comment to moderator
No I meant that I have never seen your caricatured theology anywhere.
Report comment to moderator
LOL!
FuzzyFaze: If by ‘dream on’ you mean I should forget about hoping that today’s evangelicals will once again take seriously Jesus’s words about the poor, marginalized and downtrodden, and forsake their veneration of wealth and courting of power, I fear you’re right.
…he intoned!
Think nothing of the implication there that evangelicals supposedly do NOT take seriously Jesus’ words about the poor, downtrodden, etc., for you have now heard the voice of reeeezon.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Mr. Innes. This was a well-spoken argument. I have to admit that I was surprised. I used to be an avid reader of World magazine, voted only Republican or Libertarian, and argued often that care of the poor was the responsibility of the church. About ten years ago, that began to change. It changed for three reasons: a) My approach to scripture changed — I spent more time actually studying scripture with the willingness to let it change me rather than trying to twist it to fit my Libertarian views, b)The Conservative movement changed, becoming ever more radical and, frankly, scary, c) My study of the issues changed — I began to care about whether or not a policy worked more than I cared about whether it fit my ideology.
Therefore, I was really pleased to read your article. It is thought-provoking and does not dismiss God’s mandate for government and individuals to protect the poor from the powerful. It raises questions about how that can best be done and I appreciate that. My prayer is that someday Christian conservatives will return to the policy table ready to debate the best mechanisms to fulfill our responsibilities in these areas, but never again to seriously question whether or not such is our duty.
Thank you and God bless you!
Report comment to moderator
Mac: The blogger I quoted, Crystal Lewis, wrote: “Jesus’ other message– the one about caring for the poor… the downtrodden… the ‘least of these’– has been lost in a haze of theology about raptures, infernos and personal conversion experiences.”
I think she’s largely correct. Much of what I hear coming from evangelicals has to do with questioning whether people have been saved, and standing opposed to gays, abortion and income taxes.
If they also pay attention to caring for the poor and downtrodden, they certainly don’t call much attention to it. And when the conversation is about wealth disparity, the evangelicals are likely to line up with the rich against the downtrodden. It’s happened on this very board enough times to make that clear.
The only large groups of Christians I see putting a major emphasis on caring for the poor and downtrodden are those who are in the mold of Jim Wallis or Brian McLaren — the kind most evangelicals write off as apostate or, at best, misguided.
If you want people like me to believe conservative Christians really spend much time on the poor and downtrodden, perhaps you should encourage them to put as much energy into publicly doing so as they do into opposing gays and abortion.
Mocking me may make you feel better, but it does nothing to convince me I’m wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, sometimes you hear about being saved and standing opposed to abortion, etc., for decent reasons. You’re so uncharitable; you should stop lamenting lack of civility of these threads–doing so makes you subject to mockery for your hypocrisy.
If you’re not aware of Christian charity–if you’re incapable of using the internet, opening a phone book, or stepping inside a church, well, I’m sorry. Maybe it “makes you feel better” (you didn’t feel like going with neener-neener?), but Christians are charitable. Not without flaws, I admit–as we all do–but they are charitable.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!