Forget George Bush. Ted Rall must hate black people.

For those of you who don't read national editorials very often (if at all) Ted Rall is a syndicated liberal columnist, who I usually read when I feel I don't have enough negativity towards my personal conserative views in my life. This week's installment caught my eye with the title Charities are for Suckers. "Hmm!" I thought, "What a curious and unobvious play on words." It's not a play on words. This guy hates charity organizations from the Salvation Army to the Red Cross. Read his article. Don't take my word for it. His point is basically that charities exist so that government can get out of its perceived "duty" of taking care of everyone. (With a little bit of the now-classic mantra "the N.O. levees broke because our troops are in Iraq.")

I've been looking for a good example of a major difference between conservatives and liberals, because labeling liberals as pinko, hippie baby-killers and conservatives as Bible-thumping, gun crazy industrialists tends to just be insulting to both parties and NEVER gives the full picture. I think this is the best case I've ever seen. Teddy seems to think that the government exists to act as our rich parents. When disaster strikes, the government should give us money. When I'm out of a job and sick, the government should give me money. When I'm old, the government should give me money. In the meantime, since I am not surrounded by death, sickness, or crushing poverty...I must be rich, so I shouldn't complain about giving a ton of money to support a bloated government whose job it is to spend money. It sounds great until reality sets in. The bottom line is that no government run by people has NEVER and will NEVER operate well as a relief organization.

What does the Bible say about it? The Bible gives pretty good examples of how the early Christians behaved, "They [the fellowship of believers] devoted themselves to...expressing outrage that the Roman Empire did not provide their poor with a large enough living stipend." For those of you paying attention, the verse actually reads, "Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." (Acts 3:45) Again in 4:34, "There wer eno needy persons among them. FOr from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." Then also in chapter 6 where the disciples, when told of the misfortunes of some widows, said, "Oh man, we should definitely petition the government to begin a program of food distribution. After all, this is the richest civilization to date..." Ooops. Almost got you there, didn't I. Actually, they elected Church deacons to care for the needy. So you see, the Bible appears to suggest that the burden of the downtrodden does not fall to the government, rather...it is the Church's to bear.

This concept seems so obvious that even non-Christians have recognized the need for charity. While it is mostly an effort for the unsaved to feel better about themselves through altruism, it is still a nod in the direction that throughout human history, the government has never been very good at helping the downtrodden. Until a government is run, not by fallen people, but by Christ Himself, the best way to support those we have compassion for is to give to charity, to Churches, and to similar organizations.

Since a major portion of the help that the vicitims of Katrina are receiving come from charity, not political obligation, the only conclusion that I can draw is that Ted Rall does not want those victims to receive as much help as possible. Kayne West accused George Bush of racism because the federal government didn't react quickly (in his opinion) to the predominantly minority communities in Louisiana. I have to make a similar claim of racism to anyone who promotes the lessening of aide to those very same people.

What do you think?