WHAT WOULD YOU SAY: Should We Seek To End Economic Inequality?

There are many in America who, upon seeing a thin person and an obese person talking with each other, immediately conclude that the obese individual got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.

So should doing away with all economic inequality be a priority for the just society? The Colson Center’s Brook McIntire says no, that would be a huge mistake and she offers three solid reasons why she believes that to be the case:

McIntire also contends that the more important societal and individual goal concerns poverty, which is something Jesus talked about, especially from the perspective of how all of us should respond to it. One thing He did not say was anything remotely resembling “take from those who have and give to those who don’t have.”

“God’s Crime Scene: Examining The Evidence
He Made The Universe”

WHO: NBC “Dateline” cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace
(Click Here For Video Message From Wallace)

WHAT: Eight 1-hour weekly Zoom video sessions, led by HillFaith’s Mark Tapscott
WHY: The proof of God’s existence isn’t “out there,” it’s right here in “God’s Crime Scene”


Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here: https://hillfaith.blog/about-hillfaith-2/

2 thoughts on “WHAT WOULD YOU SAY: Should We Seek To End Economic Inequality?”

  1. > One thing He did not say was anything remotely resembling “take from those who have and give to those who don’t have.”

    Unless the person who has riches happens to be you. In that case, he DID say something resembling that. See Matthew 19:16-30. Perhaps changing “take from those” to “take from others” would help make your point more clear.


    1. The “take from” part is absolutely clear enough.
      Jesus at no point said to take from someone to give to someone else.
      He said for people to “give” and he meant for people to give from *their own* resources to people without.
      That is the key problem with the way government is run nowadays.
      Government *takes from*, and scoops off a portion for bureaucrats to lead safe and sheltered lives, and then gives to.
      If the various government earned their own money and then used *THAT* for charity, then we wouldn’t be in this difficulty.


Comments are closed.