Tom Toles for December 01, 2013

John 21:14-17New International Version (NIV)14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep!"

Pope Francis is a social conservative who believes in social justice, and thinks the latter as important as the former, in fact, thinks they are linked together.Amazing how many Catholics are surprised at this. They have been merely pro-birth so long, that they have come to think that THAT was being pro-life. Pro-life for Francis means not only being against abortion, but also (like his immediate predecessors) being against war, poverty, and the death penalty. Some folks might say, “Everyone is against war and poverty.” True. But that does not mean for those folks, as it does for Francis, that they are obligated to do something to oppose war and fight poverty, to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and comfort the afflicted, to encourage equality and a more compassionate and just society, albeit within traditional social norms.Pope Francis is not interested in your rights, he is interested in your duties to God and to your brother. And he makes it very clear that to him and his God, your obligations and duties toward you neighbor do not begin and end with leaving him alone. He exemplifies social conservatism at its best, and stands in direct opposition to libertarian conservatism at its worst. (I hate to call it that: the most ardent libertarian I know calls conservatism evil, and thinks “libertarian Republican” a contradiction in terms.)Social and libertarian conservatism are in fact quite opposed to one another when each is considered in its pure form, but the GOP must stand with one foot it each. The combination is in practice, I sometimes think, worse than either one by itself, for it tends to put forward the worst of each: a regressive view of society AND a heartless unconcern for the uncompetitive or unfortunate. It is the root of most of the hypocrisy we see in conservative policy. Mixed together in a better way, you might end up with a pragmatic and compassionate conservatism such as George Bush feebly and ineffectually strove for. Instead we see the libertarians drive compassion out of the GOP, while the social conservatives block actual liberation.If you think, dear conservative reader, this shoe does not fit you, then you have my permission not to wear it. I can only base these general observations on the conservatives whom I actually know, and what I hear them say.

ConserveGov., thank you for your polite response to that of Doughfoot. Keep in mind that none of us can know what is another’s heart or mind, let alone the hearts and minds of a group.

I sincerely hope that what you posted about the attitude of conservatives is true. Unfortunately, those attitudes are not always shown by current Republican or Tea party policies.

I don’t think you are correct about the attitudes of liberals. I think the liberals / progressives want to see fair wages and working conditions, protection for the environment, a rising standard of living for all, and help for the needy. I don’t know any who are in favor of generational poverty. Every liberal / progressive I know talks about helping people rise, to stand on their own two feet, to be a productive member of society. And they act on those principles, giving of their time or money or both.

Lastly, can you provide information about who gives more to charity? If the conservatives (and the radical neo-conservatives, who I view as a different set, based on their apparent policies) give more, good for them! Sincere cheers. However, when you have a huge proportion of the wealth, can’t you afford to give more?

It’s not easy to champion social justice when the money changers not only have taken over the Temple, but most of our society.

Sometimes it seems that some folks are all about “giving” to the unfortunate rather than creating a society in which individual generosity is less necessary, where people can have some security without “relying on the kindness of strangers.” Why might that be? In some cases, the genuinely believe that life can’t be made any fairer, and efforts to make it so always fail. I call that despair and giving up, but it is, I suppose, well-meant. There are others who think that when they act in concert with their community, state, or nation, to provide help systematically and not individually, it no longer “counts” as virtuous. It is “forced” even when the majority agrees through the democratic process to do it, and only that which is given by personal individual choice matters. I have heard them say this: if you vote to raise your own taxes to provide better for your brothers, they still brand you as only spending other people’s money. There are studies that suggest that conservatives give more individually than liberals, but there are plenty of other studies that suggest this is not true. But, who can tell? There are those who don’t advertise all they do or give. Why should I take a charity deduction on my income taxes, and so have my fellow-citizens subsidize my giving? Never was a good idea. And contrary to myth, taxes have always gone for the care of the poor, and providing for them has always been one of the functions of government: even long before the USA was created. “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." It should not be, to my mind, about gaining individual merit: it should be about building a just society wherein all members may enjoy, by mutual consent, a degree of security.

It’s not about conservatives and liberals. “Love the lord your God with all your heart and soul. Love your neighbor like you love yourself.”

Red states give more to charity.You can post that meme all you darn well like, but it doesn’t make it true. There is no real way to quantify how much who gives out to what charity. What groups are “red states” giving money to? Does money donated political causes count toward your statistic? What about money donated to churches used for the upkeep of the church? What about national and international charities? Are they counted in your statistic? Is the money donated at charity kettles during the holidays included? Your statistic is utterly meaningless without information to back it up. Sounds like something a “low information voter” would buy into.

And how much of all that conservative “charity” goes to theater, opera, ballet, symphony, even PBS (David Koch)?While all good things, they are what the wealthy patronize (except PBS) and certainly don’t help the hungry. And how about blatantly political 501©s? Are they not tax-exempt?

I echo ypoon7666’s earlier post to Tom Toles:Kudos! …very well said.When we quick arguing and start following Jesus’ teachings, America (and the world) will improve.

Just a note after the “repeats” in the posts: How about the folks who donate hundreds, or thousands, of hours as volunteers in things like search and rescue, fire fighting, EMTs, or helping out at hospitals, rest homes, soup kitchens, etc???

What is the culture that only $$$$$ “parted with” = charity?

Joe Biden has given an average of $369 per year over the past 10 years on an average annual income of over $300,000.That quote dates from 2008. The Bidens have been giving about 10k a year since then. Of course, the Romneys & the Cheneys give more money to charity than those loser Bidens make in a year. But, they make a lot more money. Biden held the distinction of being the poorest guy in the Senate.

Many conservatives give to ‘charities’ that are representatives of their activist churches and other political causes. The only sweeter deal would be giving it to yourself and having it count.

Jesus was concerned with lives and souls. The so-called conservatives today are concerned with stuff. In a nutshell, one party values

The “conservatives” of today, in philanthropy and foreign affairs, is “do unto others, before they can do it to you.”

Columbus Dispatch reports today that two local charities will not be holding toy drives this year. Both because they have had to serve so many families that their resources must be directed elsewhere.

" Get your head out of your a$$ & see what the GOP & Libertarians want ALL people to improve their lots in life, not have government support them their entire lives."

Sure – the only problem there is that the GOP and libertarians have zero problem with off shoring all family wage jobs to venues which have no regulation and no taxes.

You can’t have it both ways. Keep the jobs home, and people will work them. If there aren’t jobs, they have no way to earn a living, do they?

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Pick one.

“Obviously you don’t understand, the Vatican is a sovereign nation owing nothing to anyone.”

True, that. It’s also probably true that they are the only entity which controls more resources than the insurance companies.

“Then why did Jesus not like tax collectors?”Tax collectors at the time were reviled because they worked, quite literally, on commission. It wasn’t about fairness or taxation without representation, it was about squeezing money out of the poor in order to line the coffers of the upper classes.Learn some history, dude!