Most Christians Blame The Poor For Being Poor

While Pope Francis comes from a branch of the Catholic Church called the Social Gospel that says society has a responsibility to help the poor, this does not represent the thinking of most Christian’s in the U. S. The majority think poor people have only themselves to blame.

Some of this comes from Bible passages which say the lazy should not eat. There are Bible passages which say the rich should give away their money. The latter are not as popular as the former.

Statistically, we know why there are poor people. The majority of poor people had poor parents. The big percentage of children who live in poverty have divorced parents. Poor people divorce at almost twice the rate of the non poor.

A significant percentage of people become poor due to health reasons. Also, poor people often are poor for a period of time then find work and go off of public assistance.

If you are not poor and  like me have adequate assets and income, it is in your long-term interests to advocate for low income public assistance. The more poor people there are the more bad things happen in our society the adversely affect those of us who are not poor. Public assistance is an insurance policy for a stable and productive society.

We can argue forever on precisely the amount of assistance needed by the poor. Adequate medical services, food and housing are required.

Christians need to step up and support the poor.

24 Responses

  1. Jinx II

    Religion gives false justification to fake christians in Government as well as the general population, to cut health,education and social programs in the USA. This reality is completely opposite of the words their Jesus spoke in their own bible.

    Great column Jon!

      1. Thanks to all believers who commented on this topic. All took issue with me on one aspect or another. I would better understand if each would write clearly, “I believe poverty is more about the circumstances of birth and bad luck than it is about the effort individuals put forth.” From what people wrote, I can only conclude all believe the cause of poverty is the sin and/or fault of individual, not society or the circumstances of birth.

        1. Chuck Z

          And I can only conclude, by the title of your blog, that you are more than willing to lie in an effort to make whatever point you are trying to make. You can take the man out of politics but you can’t take the politics out of the man.

          1. Chuck Z 1:01 And I can only conclude, by the title of your blog, that you are more than willing to lie in an effort to make whatever point you are trying to make.

            I’ll put you down as, “I believe poor people make themselves poor, but, I don’t like it when Christians are accused of believing what I believe.”

            If this is wrong, please correct. Otherwise, please do not post.

          2. Chuck Z

            What’s the matter, Jon, you don’t like to publish the truth when it shines a negative light on you? My post was obviously true, you didn’t like it, and you deleted it. You should quit posting.

  2. entech

    “There’s a strong Christian impulse to understand poverty as deeply rooted in morality — often, as the Bible makes clear, in unwillingness to work, in bad financial decisions or in broken family structures,” said Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “The Christian worldview is saying that all poverty is due to sin, though that doesn’t necessarily mean the sin of the person in poverty. In the Garden of Eden, there would have been no poverty. In a fallen world, there is poverty.”
    In the poll, which was conducted from April 13 to May 1 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, 46 percent of all Christians said that a lack of effort is generally to blame for a person’s poverty, compared with 29 percent of all non-Christians. The gulf widens further among specific Christian groups: 53 percent of white evangelical Protestants blamed lack of effort while 41 percent blamed circumstances, and 50 percent of Catholics blamed lack of effort while 45 percent blamed circumstances. In contrast, by more than 2 to 1, Americans who are atheist, agnostic or have no particular affiliation said difficult circumstances are more to blame when a person is poor than lack of effort (65 percent to 31 percent).

    Looking at the results we have to wonder about the mentality of those rotten, pinkos, liberal atheists and agnostics’ are more than twice as likely to give someone the benefit of the doubt. For most Christians it seems they follow the strange thought that God is just and benevolent and that anyone one poor just has their selves to blame. Punishment is always deserved.
    Of course Mohler gives the only possible explanation in the previous paragraph it is all due to sin – one can’t help being knocked out by the statement that it is not necessarily the sin of the poor person doing the suffering. I am not quite sure how to reconcile this with the usual attributes of just, benevolent, merciful and so on that are supposed to be a part of the deity they knows and cares for each of us personally and punishes for sins not committed.

    As Mohler further says it is because of the fall, that rotten Eve and all her descents are to blame.

  3. Schurkey

    Giving someone a TEMPORARY hand is admirable. Providing assistance via the tax code, so that deadbeats can continue to make bad decisions for months, sometimes years, and occasionally for GENERATIONS is “societal suicide”.

    Too much “assistance” destroys initiative, cripples self-worth, and provides an incentive to have excess children. When it comes to kids and “welfare”, The More, The Merrier (and the larger the benefits get.) The current “safety net” promotes long-term poverty because it promotes irresponsible breeding.

    The nearly-universal situation of poor people is that they breed more children than they can feed. Without the kids, they’d be more-likely to be able to pay their own way. How many news articles about poverty describe the “poor person” being interviewed by the large number of kids they have?

    Society needs to update the minimum-wage laws to provide the same buying-power that minimum-wage had thirty years ago. Society needs to reform “food stamps” to eliminate snacks, carbonated beverages, and the like. We need to DEMAND random, unannounced and frequent home-visits for folks on public assistance because anyone who is having We The People pay their bills should have already pawned or sold their luxury goods, and there shouldn’t be beer in the ‘fridge, cookies in the pantry, or weed in the dresser drawers.

    Anyone getting tax-funded “assistance” should be required to piss-test EVERY month. If I had to piss-test to work for a living, they should piss-test to be parasites. Maybe those samples don’t get tested…maybe they do. Certainly, a percentage of the samples should be tested, and it should include EVERYONE who is new to the assistance program, and any who are considered high-risk–such as those with previous substance-abuse convictions.

    (No, I don’t believe in drug testing employees. Their work speaks volumes. That can’t be said about folks getting their bills paid by “assistance” programs.)

    The simple fact about giving poor people subsidies is that it’s really a gift to the businesses they work for (assuming they work, and many/most do) If the employee wasn’t getting “assistance”, the employer would be forced to pay more money or lose the employee. Excess “assistance” drives down wages, making the problem WORSE. Eventually, things get so bad that you have Wal-Mart actively promoting “assistance” programs to their under-paid, part-time, low-hours workforce.

  4. Rob

    Regardless of an individual’s thoughts on what causes a person’s poverty, I see a lot more food banks, shelters, soup kitchens, etc run and sponsored by Religious groups than atheist groups.
    Come to think of it, I’ve never heard of an atheist charitable organization doing such things.
    Seems like atheists like to nitpick and complain while the religious folks are the ones doing the actual charitable work.

    1. entech

      Drs, Without Borders, Bill Gates Foundation, Oxfam, Unicef. Maybe not as many but all doing it for no other reason than that it’s the right thing to do. No proselytizing, no undercurrent of good works will get me to heaven and so on.
      We have to think that the Bill Gates foundation is trying to give it all away while the Mega Pastor types, Osteen etc, are trying to rake it all in.

      1. Rob

        Those are not exclusively atheist organizations. Try to come up with just one atheist organization doing charitable work. I’m just curious who they are and what they do.

          1. Rob 9:08 That sounds fantastic. I wonder if anyone writes blogs ridiculing their efforts?

            You are cleverly engaging in misdirection here. It is a good debate technique when one feels she is losing.

            The topic of the blog refers to political support for poor people. There is a big community of religious folks who think poor people are poor because the don’t try hard enough. President Trump would call the poor “losers”. These conservative people will tend not to support public money to provide adequate food, shelter and medical care. On the liberal side, people are more open to seeing that people are poor because of societal circumstances, poor parents, poor communities, bad luck with health, temporary job loss, etc. They support public money for the programs that help the poor. That is something entirely different than donating money to the poor. Donating money to the poor does not guarantee the poor are provided with what they need.

            If you are in favor or increasing taxes for more public subsidy to the poor please say it now.

          2. Chuck Z

            Another debate technique often used when one is losing is to delete posts. You should quit posting, Jon. Or quit lying.

        1. Jinx II

          In my experience, atheists and agnostics tend to volunteer for numerous groups who work to improve the lives of their targeted population. I suspect they tend to serve groups who aren’t rabid religious. If the 2 A’s and Ignostics pulled out of the organizations they support with their time, it would greatly hinder the groups outreach to people in need.

          Right Heather?

  5. Chuck Z

    46% is “most”.

    Didn’t you also tie yourself to the poll that said Hitlary had no chance of losing the election?

    1600 people polled. Who did they poll? How did they decide who to poll?

    Must have been a slow month for you, Jon, as you’re back to your lazy attack on Christians in hopes of web hits.

    I’d also like to know of all these charitable organizations headed up by atheist groups. Take s stab at Rob’s post.

  6. entech

    Chucky, i didn’t get to see the post you say Jon took down, I would think it must have been some extremely mindless shit as the ones he leaves up are just normal mindless shit. He is actually very tolerant, if it were me I would be inclined to “accidentally” dump you in the spam waste box.

    1. 8:43 In the Bible (Matt 28:17) it says, “some were doubtful.” Here I write blogs and some, Rob, Chuck and others, express doubt about what I write. I have to agree with the Bible that there are doubters out there.

      1. entech

        Jon you are invariably polite but it is true that in this regard there are doubters out there. Rob and Chuck do far more than express doubt but rather express a degree of animosity that says more about themselves than anything, it is almost as if their self loathing is forced to overflow and taint everyone near them.

        Even though in normal life I would try and remain as polite and reasonable as you there is some flaw in my personality such that I can’t resist a bit of childish retaliation when I come across the like. Your blog seems to have magnetic power over the more egregious of them.

        1. Chuck Z

          Blah, blah, blah…..Jon’s entire post starts out with a lie, proven by his own link. I called him out on it and he can’t stand to look in the mirror and admit it. I know the truth. He knows the truth. He’s the one that has to live with not only being a liar, but a sensitive one at that. We you need to lie to get your “message” out, your “message” probably needs to be examined.

          1. entech

            Julie Zauzmer is the one you should call out and the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation. That is the origin of the information his post was based on.

            Everything I said at 12:06 is confirmed. You last sentence, as is too frequently the case, a reflection of yourself, refers to yourself. Although, thinking about it you do not seem to have a “message” as such only an excess of negativity.

Comments are closed.