posted by geeblock
I am trying to say that if your beliefs based on the Bible make you feel like someone else should have a Child that they don’t want and can’t care for, them those same Christian beliefs would say you would support social programs/wic/Heathcare because helping your neighbor is also a tenet of Christian belief. It is very hypocritical to base a pro life belief on the Bible but al a cart pick other beliefs if that makes sense
There is a conflation of responsibilities here, although you do absolutely allude to some underlying issues that are often unduly neglected in the western Christian faith.
First, there is a delineation between positive and negative rights, which does land the two things you're comparing here in opposite places ... at least according to most Christians. The right to be free of someone trying to kill me isn't the same as the right to someone else's resources in order to keep myself alive.
The right to not be killed without just cause doesn't implicitly require any burden be placed on any third party.
The right to access something that costs money cannot pass that same litmus test, because it does, in fact, require a burden be placed on a third party.
Think about it this way:
I have the right to walk down the street without being assaulted. Does that mean I have the right to commandeer you and a friend to act as my free bodyguards as I walk down the street?
Of course, this sounds like an absurd example, but it checks the exact same boxes. I do, indeed, have the right to walk down the street without being assaulted. That doesn't, however, give me the right to your property (the sum total of your body, time, and assets) in order to ensure that I am able to do so, because my right to my own property (ie, my body) being unimpeded doesn't trump your right to your own.
Second, the programs you mention are not the same as giving of oneself. "Love your neighbor as yourself" ... a VERY important commandment in the Scriptures ... is not the same as, "Pass legislation to force everyone to help your neighbor, even against their will."
At that point, it is no longer generosity or charity. Giving at the end of a barrel of a proverbial gun is not giving. There is a pretty blatant distinction between loving your neighbor and forcing everyone to love your neighbor. The primary verb in the former imperative is 'love', but the primary verb in the latter is 'force'. This is all, of course, not even mentioning the fact that IF it were a religious imperative to vote any which way, then we'd be dealing with someone genuinely and intentionally voting in support of a theocracy, and I'm certain that's not what you'd advocate.
Make no mistake: The Bible is painfully clear that charity, generosity, and aiding those in need is one of the most important things in a life lived in accordance with the whole of the Scriptures. It's the second most repeated condemnation against the Israelite people in the Old Testament (behind idolatry, for whatever that's worth), and Jesus essentially stated that the second most important command within the entirety of the Law and Prophets ... one he alludes to being necessary as part of the first most important one ... is to love our neighbors (which he then goes on to explain as anybody in our sphere of influence who is in need). It's very important, and a LOT of Republicans seem to get so wrapped up in whether or not they should have to that they lose sight of whether or not they should anyway.
Still, it is perfectly possible to believe that it is one's moral duty to help his neighbor and community with the needs present as he is able while still opposing a law that would enforce such a moral duty with the threat of fines, imprisonment, and physical force.
