[joshberkus]

They're certainly Christian values, but they're not "conservative", at least not by the American definition. I'll point you to these tenets:

* Relieve the poor. * Clothe the naked. * Visit the sick.

... those seem like "liberal values" to me, at least on the American spectrum.

[clarkmoody]

Christ never advocates for the state to do anything. These are individual commands.

[manicdee]

Christ does exhort his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Democrats believe the state acts on behalf of the populace to perform tasks that we individually could not do. So a community can clothe and house the poor better than an individual can.

Clothing and housing are artefacts of this world, not the kingdom of Christ. Ergo rendering unto Caesar what is caesar’s involves providing clothing and housing to those who do not have it, with the state as proxy and effort multiplier.

[anbro]

I think they can be both - the liberal vs conservative part is merely the means by which you do so - do you vote small parts of other people's property to the task or do you donate your own property voluntarily to the task.

And lest this seem like a conservative jab - it is not intended in any such manner - I willingly admit that in those times the system worked completely different than it does now in ways that would create a great deal of consternation in both modern liberals AND conservatives.

[mikl]

Not to get into a huge political philosophy discussion here, but conservative people are on average some of the biggest donators to charitable groups who focus on tenets such as these. The "liberals" don't have a corner on wanting to help people, although people disagree how that help should be organised.

[atom-morgan]

Isn't homelessness the worst in California?

[gwright]

You are explicitly associating virtuous characteristics with "liberals" and suggesting that "conservatives" don't have those virtues.

Very divisive and unfounded IMHO.