I'm confused, Denise. What part of "representative democracy" didn't you understand? When the people you help elect vote on a measure and it is passed or defeated in a vote taken with other representatives, you have had your say. If you don't like your representative, elect somebody else. If you feel you get a personal veto over every regulation and law the democracy passes when it's representatives sit down to consider laws, you are not living in a democracy, you are probably kidding yourself. You are asking for rights that nobody except the President has, and which he can only exercise on behalf of the people. Even he can be overridden. Under some conditions the Supreme court can exercise a similar function.
If your proposition were the case, then somebody under sentence of death could say that the law was confiscatory, and refuse to allow his scare and vital resource to be stolen for some idiotic notion of the general good. If somebody could get away with doing so, of course, that might be something else, since obviously the murder had happened, right? But all that would do would suggest a system in which the most predatory of people could take what they wanted without any sense of laws to keep things somewhat on the up and up.
Alas, it is cheaper and more humane to be charitable and to prevent anarchy and starvation in the process than to stick to the ideals you seem to be espousing, and thus mandating, de facto, that we should demand the poor starve rather than make arrangements to feed them. Um, the poor also happen to have a fairly ;large number of folks who are children and who are ill among them, and who cannot work. Many of them do not have available family to help, and while there are many churches in the land, the size of the problem is far larger than the churches can cope with.
Also, while you may not be aware of it, some folks would rather not accept money from churches. They feel they are being bribed and on occasion the churches involved may feel they have indeed bought something.
It's really a pretty wretched accusation, when you think of it, to suggest that you can buy somebody's soul for cash and call that a victory of sorts. It demeans the person you suggest you are helping, it demeans the God you serve, it demeans the act of charity and the nature of love. It may also demean the person who makes the offer.
When we suggest an impoverished person seek charity from a religious source, I think it is easy to loose track of the nature of the transaction we suggest that a person make. A transaction with the state should be free of these things. The fact that so many of us wish to impose the burden of rage that we do along with the services we offer suggests what we've been imposing with the religious charity all this time. The fact that many of the people who get the benefits of these services have at some point in their lives or another paid into the system to supply them is so easily forgotten. Or never considered at all.