Yes, and wasn't there something Jesus said about how you treat the least
among us was the same as how you treated him? I mean, come on, when
ideas like that, which are thousands of years old, still have not gotten
through the heads of people then what's the use?

When you can't understand that it's only right to care for and help the
weakest in our society, and that the strongest (wealthiest) ought to be
paying the most to do it, then you're just plain stupid or evil. Look,
they understood the benefit of having the strong help the weak thousands
of years ago. What kind of person in today's world doesn't see the value
in that? If they can't then they sure can't call themselves a Christian.

Hawke

I think you paint with an awfully broad brush. For example, the Amish
don't participate in Social Security, nor do they participate in the
workmens compensation system. They do take care of each other, but
don't contribute to the general social welfare of the rest of us, not
that they don't sometimes help an "English" neighbor. They're highly
religious, but they don't participate in the system.

Most of the better off people that I know, already contribute a fair
amount to charities and agree with the general sentiment of helping
those in genuine need. Where they disagree is where the cutoff points
should be and that they shouldn't be carrying the majority of the
burden.


RWL