My Photo
Location: United States

I am a 1967 graduate of The Citadel (Distinguished Military Student, member of the Economic Honor Society, Dean's List), a 1975 graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div., magna cum laude, member of the Phi Alpha Chi academic honor society); I attended the Free University of Amsterdam and completed my History of Dogma there and then received a full scholarship from the Dutch government to transfer to the sister school in Kampen, Holland. In 1979 I graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Churches of Holland (Drs. with honors in Ethics). My New Testament minor was completed with Herman Ridderbos. I am also a 2001 Ph.D. graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (Systematic Theology) in Philly with a dissertation on the "unio mystica" in the theology of Dr. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). I am a former tank commander, and instructor in the US Army Armor School at Ft. Knox, KY. I have been happily married to my childhood sweetheart and best friend, Sally, for 43 years. We have 6 children, one of whom is with the Lord, and 14 wonderful grandchildren.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

How Do We Do Social Justice? (VIII)

An Example of How Government Welfare Doesn’t Work

My good friend Bob Boyd sent me a classic example of how perpetual welfare recipients know how to milk the system. In actuality, it was an article carried by the Times-Picayune of New Orleans. The article (“Welfare Ain’t What It Used to Be”) chronicles a woman named Sharon Jasper, who is convinced that she has been victimized; rabidly wronged. She endured hurricane Katrina, which, of course, was not only Bush’s fault, but he actually had his lieutenants pack C4 into the winds and rain to make the hurricane far worse than it naturally was. In other words, Katrina, was a government conspiracy. While the winds blew and the C4 exploded, Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton were siphoning off oil from Iraq instead of searching for bin Laden. No wonder Code Pink wants the Marines out of Berkeley; they were complicit as well. You just can’t trust the Marines. After all, what have they ever done for our country? This article is a snapshot of precisely what is wrong with our welfare system. I’m not suggesting that every recipient of welfare horrifically abuses the system, but this is part and parcel of the problem.

Before I get into the contents of the article, I want to make a few preliminary comments. It has been somewhat surprising to me that the media spent so little time on what the Democrat governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans didn’t do. Immediately, the focus went to the federal level and the state and local officials got a free pass. Such is the nature of the media these days. No bias there! Second, it also surprised me that so few pastors said anything about what happened. It seems that Amos 3:6 is no longer in Scripture or is no longer taken seriously (“Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?”). After all, if God is only a God of love, then how can we involve him in any natural disasters? It seems that Geico, State Farm, Allstate, and USAA are about the only ones still willing to speak of such events as “acts of God.” Evangelicals shy away from that type of thing. Nevertheless, Amos is worthy of our consideration, since it is part of the canon of the Bible.

But now to the point: Ms. Jasper’s particular problem has to do with being moved out of government housing, better known as Section 8. According to the article, she has spent 57 of her 58 years in Section 8 housing. Ms. Jasper has passed this “legacy” along to her children as well—the sins of the fathers and mothers. She worries that her kids might actually have to pay for their own utilities in government housing or even pony up something that looks like a deposit.

Does all this mean that Ms. Jasper has never worked? No, not quite. She took a one year hiatus from feeding at the trough and tried gainful employment. It was a painful experience. Here are the precise words from Ms. Jasper’s mouth: “I tried it for a year. You know, working and all. It’s not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on any one in my family, but I am d*** proud of that year.” Someone ought to have given her a plaque for commendable service. Imagine. One whole year. I mean, we’re not talking any shabby 6-8 month stint here, but one whole year, which, by the way, was sufficiently rigorous to convince Ms. Jasper that she wouldn’t wish that type of life on any of her children. One can only imagine that they wholeheartedly agree with mom.

The concept of victimhood was foisted upon Ms. Jasper by the same nanny-state government that provided her Section 8 housing—at U.S. taxpayer expense of course. Ms. Jasper lived in what was called the St. Bernard—it got the name because the government sent St. Bernards with casks of rum throughout the housing complex as a kind of welfare happy hour—that got wacked by the C4 in hurricane Katrina. The upshot was a horrible rant by Ms. Jasper because of the move. At a meeting about the proposed razing of the Section 8 rum factory, one young man suggested that the newer housing would be an improvement and that Ms. Jasper should be thankful that the U.S. taxpayer was footing the bill. She shot back at him, “Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave! Back up and shut up!” Ironically, Ms. Jasper didn’t realize that she already was a slave and had been for about 57 years.

Being the queen of the non sequitur, Ms. Jasper continued that many citizens of New Orleans had been displaced all over the United States due to the “Bush Hurricane Conspiracy” (my take on it!—RG) and that meant—and I am not making this up—“They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them.” This must have been a very interesting meeting. It’s a tough life when you are forced to commit crimes in strange places. Forced? Who in the world is forcing them to be criminals? Well, we all know the answer to that one don’t we? It’s the super-rich who refuse to pay their fair share. Hmm. What might constitute a “fair share”? That’s a provocative question because currently the top 10% of taxpayers pay somewhere between 75-80% of the total tax bill. You can look it up for yourself. Over 50% of all United States taxpayers pay less than 20%. Folks like Ms. Jasper and her ilk pay very, very little (sales tax) or nothing.

But seriously, who is forcing people to commit crimes? There is always honest employment to pay bills. This, however, is the attitude among some. Ms. Jasper was also indignant about the quality of her new Section 8 housing. She stated that people shouldn’t be fooled by the nice hardwood floors. The government was only trying to do it on the cheap, which also explains her dismay at the lousy 60-inch HD TV in her Section 8 housing. Her comment: “It may look nice, but it is not a plasma.” Moreover, “Now they want me to pay a deposit on this dump.” It’s all very understandable, of course. Ms. Jasper has been treated shabbily in light of that one year of work. Sub-standard hardwood floors, a 60-inch HD TV that isn’t even plasma, and, to add insult to injury, they want a deposit for utilities.

Where does it all end? Ms. Jasper has a car, 60-inch HD TV, hardwood floors, food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare checks, and she has taught her children to be wards of the nanny state as well. The only thing we need to add to the list of goodies is universal health care, but Ms. Jasper is, no doubt, on subsidized health care as well. Out here in the Golden State we currently have a $14-20 billion deficit and the annual drain on the California taxpayer is $10 billion for all the illegal immigrants. All this manifests how out of touch our state and federal government is with mainstream Americans. The tax burden continues to rise precipitously and there is really nothing to show for it. The revenues are sufficient; it’s the expenditures that drain the budget and our elected representatives continue to spend, spend, spend.

Thankfully, not every recipient is like Ms. Jasper, but enough are. It is time for churches to step up to the plate with a comprehensive biblical plan to provide gainful employment in exchange for food or to train them to work for a living and not to stand at the trough waiting for a hardworking person to give them something for nothing.



Blogger IceDawg said...

Hi sister,

Since you offered, I'm interested to see the evidence for what you're talking about in the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs. In particular I am interested in backing for the displacing of workers and the building of the glass ceiling. I have found it difficult to find any statistics on this topic, apart from what I shared last chat, so I'm hoping you have better connections.

Also could you clarify your 2nd last paragraph? I'm not sure what you're getting at there. What calculation? What equation? Which variables?

From your last paragraph, it seems that despite all those posts in the recent past, the only thing we disagree on is who should administer the care for the poor. The government, or private citizens/foundations and/or the church...

6:16 AM  
Blogger jazzact13 said...

--It's unfortunate that you chose to cheapen this post with such spiteful sarcasm and sporadic politic diversion, because, for the most part, you're right on the money with this one... right up to the last paragraph.--

Does this mean that you disagree with the last paragraph? Here it is.

--Thankfully, not every recipient is like Ms. Jasper, but enough are. It is time for churches to step up to the plate with a comprehensive biblical plan to provide gainful employment in exchange for food or to train them to work for a living and not to stand at the trough waiting for a hardworking person to give them something for nothing.--

So, what you disagree on here? Do you want people to be dependent on government welfare? Do you disagree that it may be a good idea for churches to help people find employment so they can not have to rely on the government? Do you think that it is right to take from people who put in the labor to earn what they get, and give it to people who have not worked for it?

--People forced into "work for welfare" programs, more often than not, displace workers.--

What do mean by "displace workers"? Do you mean that people may have to move from one location to another in order to find work? That is a possibility we all face. As someone starting out in graphic design, I had to move from where I had been studying to where I could find work. It wasn't a big move, but it was a move, and now that I'm looking for a better opportunity, I anticipate having to relocate again.

--When displaced, guess where they end up? Yup, back in the system, perpetuating their social circumstance.--

Yet whose fault is that? What responsibilities does the person have to acclimate themselves to a new location, and did they do that?

--The workers who are displaced are the ones working the hardest, on the lowest end of the poverty scale.--

A person who is just getting into any form of work should not expect to be paid overly much. Over time, though, if they stay in it, learn the skills, work hard and well, they will likely gain more trust and responsibility and thus earn more.

"Rags to riches" is not an empty dream, it is entirely possible. But it may not happen overnight, or even in a year or two. One must be patience and perseverent.

6:48 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

I agree with jazzact: it's ambiguous whether sister agrees or disagrees with the last paragraph. I cannot imagine anyone who is concerned about the poor and poverty not thinking the last paragraph was a viable option to nanny-state welfare.
Moreover, actions have consequences. Someone like Ms. Jasper cannot expect anything other than an entry level job to begin. Through hard word, honesty, and integrity she can move up and earn more. She--and those like her--must accept the fact that if they have refused to become educated that, all other things being equal, they will probably not advance all that far. In other words, they probably won't earn a 6-figure salary. Nevertheless, they can be gainfully employed and earn their own way rather than expecting someone else to pay their way for them.
Moreover, Herman Bavinck repeatedly made the point that honest labor ennobles fallen man in a way that being a welfare recipient doesn't.
Finally, just as an aside, sister, you really do need an in depth attitude check. While you're performing that check, would you explain to me what constitutes "sporadic politic(al) diversion"? That's a new concept to me.

8:44 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

I'm sorry sister, but you would never let any of us post "I've seen it time and again" as evidence without challenging. You would accuse us of not looking any further than our bedroom window or something along those lines. So I would ask you to maintain your own standard.

Do you have any statistical or biblical proof that a "workfare" programs consistently do the things you are asserting? By the way, I missed the anecdote in your post.

Your last question to jazzact is not accurate. If you want to prove that we need to be completely independent of everyone, your question would be correct. I don't think anyone here is trying to assert that position. In fact, we have been saying that people and the church should be helping people.

Since we are trying to prove independence from social welfare, the question you should be asking is whether people have gotten off to poor starts and worked themselves out of it without any help from the government. I can't speak for jazzact, but I can answer in the affirmative for myself. Since you know who I am, you may even know the story...

Finally, the proposition is not for people to have help removed altogether. It is only a matter of changing the agents that provide that help from the state to private individuals/foundations and the church.

11:08 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

Sorry, sorry, sorry. I just get a little excited sometimes... :-)

Thanks for the anecdote Sister. It sounds like Jill has had a really tough go of it. I don't mean to belittle those very unfortunate folks who are in those binds. I know their pain is acute. At the beginning you state that anecdotal evidence is not usually accepted in these debates. You yourself have been guilty of rejecting anecdotal evidence that points in a direction you disagree with.

I'm sure we could dig up some anecdotes that show how welfare has actually has harmed an individual's progress or crippled them as people. Even the example of the woman in this post. Then that kind of evidence becomes a wash does it not? That is why we need to base our system of caring for the poor on Scripture. That is where the disagreement (on this particular topic) is. I haven't seen any evidence that either of us is willing to budge...STUBBORN!

Again going back to Jill, it is unfortunate the church did not do its job. However, I'm sure we can also point to instances when the government didn't do its job (say in protecting the unborn children of our culture who are being killed through government funded abortion clinics.)

When the Bible gives directives about the caring for the poor, it does so to Christians and the church. I think it is wrong to expect a secular government to implement that instruction. I know you disagree with that, but I'm convinced that is the way it is.

As for making assumptions about my involvement in the poor and needy, I think it would be fair to give me the benefit of the doubt before you assume that I am not involved in that kind of care. You may be surprised. I regularly spend time and help a sometimes suicidal, schizophrenic fellow. It is a great blessing for me to be able to spend time with him.

11:37 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

A number of us weren't sure what you meant and, yes, it did sound ambiguous. A simple clarification without the attitude would have been fine.
Yes, I would appreciate an elucidation of what "sporadic politic diversion" means since it isn't a coherent phrase. What is a politic diversion--sporadic or otherwise?
In your anecdote: Jill had other choices. At 15, she could have contacted the law or, if she were a Christian, her pastor. She did not necessarily have to become a street child, but she chose to do so.
This is precisely what I meant when I said that actions have consequences. Having said that, I could multiply similar stories for you. There are all sad and when you sit down and analyze them there were always different, better choices that could have been made.
A 15-year-old with no marketable skills has little prospect for great advancement. It would have been helpful if some lights had gone on and Jill would have started on a new course in life.
Christians cannot know everything that is going on all the time. You don't provide us with any information about her faith life and church affiliation, but the point is clear that welfare isn't always all that helpful. That is why I've been making the point that Scripture discourages hand outs and encourages gainful employment, even if it's entry level work.
Our congregation is connected to a number of organizations that distribute clothing and food to those in poverty. The church has a calling in this area. She cannot, however, rectify every rotten, stupid decision that someone makes and it is not her place to do so. It is also not the task of the governments of the U.S. or Canada to provide welfare programs. There is NO biblical example of the government forcibly taking money from its citizens in order to redistribute it to others.

8:46 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

"Being in graphic design... can you tell me that you got to where you are today without help from parents, friends, family, church, state, anybody? Did you do it entirely on your own, without the benefit of support of any kind? Nobody gave you food, money, or shelter, from the time you left grade school? If you answer "yes", honestly, I'll consider changing my tune, and maybe I'll start using your story to anecdotally support the abolition of state mandated welfare programs."
This is fallacious argumentation. Families are supposed to help their children with their growth and provide the necessities of life. Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 5:8 is precisely along these lines. It's a huge and inconsequential stretch to equate what parents do for their kids and government controlled welfare where taxes are taken from citizens to pay for others.

8:50 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

You are quite wrong. There is a difference between confidence and attitude. Your comments are caustic. As someone trained to be a theologian, it's my job to protect the sheep from danger. That's what I do with McLaren. I also explain things positively, as I have done with this series on gleaning and poverty. In either case, you simply carp. If you really are a female, you truly sound like you have permanent PMS.
Would you call your family physician arrogant and bicker with him/her about a diagnosis. Would you accuse him of exuding attitude for doing what he does? No, of course not. It's just that you would rather bicker and carp than engage in discussing the blog.
This is your last warning. Either start interacting with the material or you are gone--permanently.
One other thing. I have a book coming out in September and another long one next year. I am also a pastor and the stated clerk of my presbytery. I have a family and friends and I coach youth wrestling.
Therefore, I have a little more to do with my time than to decipher what "sporadic politic diversion" means. I don't need the nonsense.

7:31 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

I wrote a beautifully scripted post that was erased by server problems. Now I give an abbreviated version...

Problem 1:
When the government taxes me, I have no control over where that money goes. Just to give the grossest example, in Canada, the government has used tax revenues to fund over 3,000,000 abortions since 1971. In most other European nations these are available upon request as well, with England & Wales reporting 185,000 abortions in 2002 alone. see BBC story. In fact almost all European nations have abortion on demand policies. That is enough evidence to take "social spending" power out of their hands. I would dare say the government has killed more people in Canada than would have died of starvation without their welfare safety net. So I will gladly promote the elimination of the government's brand of social care for a private and church governed care for the poor.

Problem 2:
In scripture, the calls to take care of the poor are given to individuals and the church. People are told to take what they have been given by God and be good stewards with it, which would include being generous and helping the poor. It does not command us to be good stewards with other peoples' money.

Instead of continuing to fund government programs through income tax, Christians and the church should be equipping themselves to carry out the task God gave them. I would rather take a chance with the church missing some cases (not at all saying that it's not a big deal, or that we should not be working hard to make sure that does not happen) than to continue to fund the secular government. They have proved repeatedly that they will use at least a part of that money for a whole host of God-hating causes. Even if it were only a little part, it would be to much.

7:53 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

Just to clarify, I know we pay to Caesar what is his etc.

8:16 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...


I thought my disclaimer beneath my comment would have eliminated your last post. I wholeheartedly embrace the teaching of Romans 13 and live by it. You're preaching to the choir. I do not rebel against them. However, it is completely reasonable to point out inconsistencies and wrong-doing in the government and to work for change. It would be like saying that those living under Hitler/Stalin (fill in your despot) should have lived without resistance or complaint because the government is instituted by God. It comes down to that common complaint I have about your posts: attributing things to me that I never said. I'll say it as clearly as I can: I believe we need to pay our taxes without reservation.

It disappoints me a lot that you would trivialize the murder of 3,000,000 people. Who else will you hold responsible for the misuse of that money but the government? It is not at all rhetorical effect. It is an incident of a travesty of justice perpetrated by those you want to entrust with the Christian care for the needy.

I'm sorry but it really riles me when Christian folks say that the abortion issue adds triviality to a discussion.

11:48 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

I also made it clear that I don't trivialize the church missing some cases. That was very clear in my post.

11:50 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

I'll give one example (there are many):

I said regarding the church missing cases that I was "not at all saying that it's not a big deal, or that we should not be working hard to make sure that does not happen."

Your translation: "I'm a little disappointed that you would trivialize the issue by using it to justify "the chance [of] the church missing some cases."

I never tried to justify the chance of people falling through the cracks.

12:22 PM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

Please read my posts carefully then and capture all of what I'm saying, because my comment about those falling through the cracks was not hidden or ambiguous. All I did was re-iterate, not clarify.

Your idea of protection for those in need is exactly where the abortion issue comes in. Has the government done a good job protecting those in need? No. They killed 3,000,000 of them. Who is more needy that an unborn child who can do nothing at all to protect him/herself?

12:54 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

I really did struggle with Hebrew (98 average) and Greek (99). It was tough but there was no one as helpful as you around.
No one minds discourse, but what you say doesn't qualify.
Who says that the study of theology has no scientific component? Does the doctor's life come into play at all, i.e., the fact that he's in favor of late term abortion? You act as if the doctor is "neutral," but he isn't.
As much as you complain about people misunderstanding you, you didn't do a very good job of understanding what Icedawg was saying.
Are you exempt from political prejudice? From what I've read from your posts, you are a flaming liberal and that greatly affects how you view Scripture, poverty, government, and every other topic. I am a conservative theologically and politically and have no problem with that, but you need to acknowledge that your views are just as slanted because of your political tastes.

1:28 PM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

Hi Sister,

I don't think my argument is quite as you put it forward. My point is that the Canadian (but you can fill in any Western government) leaders have been active in financing and training people to kill unborn children. Their role is not passive as you put it forward in that they merely allow it. It really is a holocaust of the unborn. We don't say Hitler allowed the Jews to be killed. He actively worked at it. The same is true to a large degree for the Canadian government. So my argument sounds different:

Because the government actively works at financing and training the doctors/clinics who are killing unborn children and makes it illegal to protest within a certain radius of these facilities, they cannot be trusted to save lives.

When you're having a discussion about the protection of the helpless, I don't think you can leave the topic of abortion out. The government may use part of the money they get to provide a safety net, but with their other hand they take another part of the money and fill a mass grave with about 100,000 helpless children killed per year. So by allowing them to manage these social programs we're losing much more than we're gaining when it comes to the helpless and those in need of protection.

4:27 PM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

Just another thought. If Bill Gates goes and wipes out even 1,000 innocent people, are you going to say he's alright because he also runs and orphanage in Taiwan? It sounds preposterous to me.

4:31 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Here's the deal: if you want to continue your conversation with me you can do it privately by emailing me at It's time for you to leave for now.

6:05 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

Actually, Sister, Ron doesn't have to share anything. This is his blog, and he can ban individuals or not allow comments at his discretion.

Personally, I hope he doesn't ban you. I'd miss the entertainment. ;)

8:13 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Please simply converse with me by email. It really is move than tedious. And, yes, since it is my blog, irrespective of the forum, I may choose who stays and who leaves. At least for right now and until you and I iron out some things via email I will delete everyone of your posts. Actions do have consequences.

8:58 PM  
Blogger Soli Deo Gloria said...

Hello Sister,

In reply to Pastor Gleason's comment, "There is NO biblical example of the government forcibly taking money from its citizens in order to redistribute it to others," you said (and I am paraphrasing here since your posts are no longer available) that the Bible doesn't forbid the civil government from providing welfare. The problem with your argument is that you are arguing from silence. The Bible may not forbid the civil government from providing welfare, but it also doesn't forbid the civil government from *insert activity here*, now does it? At what point do you put a limit to what the civil government does when the Bible says nothing?

1:15 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

So now what are we supposed to do???

5:58 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

Why would you not expect it from me? Perhaps you don't know me as well as you think then... I think you meant that as a compliment, right?

It's difficult to have a relationship with someone who knows who you are but is unwilling to identify themselves. Not the greatest foundation for trust and all that.

I hope your medical issues get sorted out.

10:59 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

I am serious.

4:51 PM  
Blogger Soli Deo Gloria said...


"The problem with your argument is that you are arguing from silence."

You're absolutely right. The problem with snake's argument, "There is NO biblical example," is that he's also arguing from silence. You can't have it one way and not the other.

I think you misunderstand the nature of arguing from silence. An argument from silence seeks consent based on what is not said. In other words, your argument is seeking to go beyond the limits of what Scripture says just because it does not say anything. It is trying to justify an action based on the lack of evidence.

However, Pastor Gleason's argument seeks to remain within the limits of what Scripture says. Where there is no evidence, there is no justification.

Your argument is fallacious, while Pastor Gleason's argument is valid.

Now don't take this as being an affront against the poor and needy. Just because I don't find any evidence in Scripture that this is a role the civil government doesn't play, it doesn't mean I advocate pulling the rug completely out from under poor right away. It was a slow process getting to where we are now with the role reversals, so it will be a slow process getting the roles back to where they belong. But that can't happen so long as Christians do not understand the proper roles of the different spheres of government.

11:14 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...


I assume that you know censorship really applies to government action? You do have free speech. You just can't insist on it while you're on someone else's blog, especially if you refuse to conform to whatever rules they set forth for discourse.

You have the right to speak, but you don't have the right to be heard, especially on a forum you don't control. Especially when you are insulting and belittling. Any blog owner -- including you if you have one -- has the right to impose an instant, automatic and permanent ban if their rules of engagement are violated. They don't even have to allow comments.

As to "arguments from silence," nice try. The problem is that some within the church seem to be appealing to some kind of spiritual/biblical authority for their arguments on poverty, social justice and government redresses. In that sense, it is perfectly proper to look to Scripture to see what is there, and what isn't there -- in other words, does Scripture really make the case for what people are claiming or denying?

If you want to argue politics, that's one thing. If you want to argue that a biblical interpretation supports your political persuasion, that's another.

By the way, your insulting manner really isn't endearing, or helping you to make your case. All you do is come across as some bitter, obnoxious harpy who thinks she is making her case by supercilious putdowns mixed into a torrent of words. I can certainly respond in kind, but really, what would that accomplish other than showing I can be just as adept at putdowns. And that would really accomplish nothing.

I have a suggestion. Why don't we all tone down the rhetoric and actually engage the questions at hand. It might help if you started from the beginning with whatever you are trying to argue, clearly defining your terms and positions, and also citing the authority for your statements.

9:54 AM  
Blogger tgoerz said...

FACTS!!?? Thats just someone's opinion.

Besides I don't feel good about guns or the 2nd amendment. It makes me uncomfortable. I mean the whole idea of somebody or something telling me what to do or think.

I mean, God is a god of love, right? Surely he wouldn't want people having guns. Aren't we supposed to love our neighbors?


10:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home