>>His4Life
What if people had to do mandatory work projects to earn their welfare checks?<<
Many of the people who benefit the most from welfare and other social support programs are already working. Of those that aren't, many are old, many are ill, and many are children.
And, as I already explained, everybody benefits from social support programs. Some people simply benefit more directly than others, because they are the ones that need the most help.
>>I find the idea of Washington coming in and proposing to "save" me like some kind of "poor negro" who can't help herself to be insulting.<<
That is not the intention of welfare programs. The intention is help anyone who needs it. Right now, the bulk of welfare recipients in the United States happen to be white.
It is true that black Americans are over-represented as a percentage of recipients. That is not an argument against welfare. It is an argument to address the inequalities of society that put more black Americans in situations where they need to use that part of the social support apparatus.
>>Could those communities have found their own, self-initiated solutions? Absolutely.<<
Perhaps they could have. But the solutions would have been far less effective than they could have been, because they would have been inside an artificially limited social structure. Governments can do things on a larger scale than any other human institution.
You say "minority communities" as though they exist separate from the society around them. But they don't. There isn't "my people" and "your people", although it is far too easy to think in those terms. There are just people, some of whom need help. Provide that help to those who want to use it.
>>As far as Jesus goes, again, he is talking to disciples and telling them what they are expected to do. Are Christians obligated to feed, clothes and care for the poor? Absolutely. No exceptions. Are they called to impose that onto others through social programs?<<
You're missing the point. Jesus is supposed to have said that X, Y, and Z are good things and that they should be done. We have government programs that do X, Y, and Z far better than private charities can, and you are saying that they are a bad thing. That is a contradiction.
The writers of the texts that were incorporated into the Bible didn't talk about social support programs because there weren't any in the times and places that they were living (although there was the municipal grain supply and rationing in Rome itself by 0 CE, that did not extend throughout the empire). But the writer of that parable understood that suffering was bad. And now we know far better ways to prevent suffering.
>>It's ironic that atheists often accuse Christians of wanting to institute a "theocracy," but then they turn around try to dictate that charity and compassion be mandated through the government. What gives? <<
The goal is to reduce human suffering. Social programs do that. Theocracy does not.
If you think "We should feed the hungry, cure the sick and prevent illness, house the homeless, and teach everyone the skills necessary for life in modern society" is a problem, then you are disturbingly short on basic human empathy and are an evil person.
And if you have a problem with charity and compassion, consider this. Even if you were an entirely self-interested opportunist, you should approve of social support, because you benefit from it along with everyone else.