Posted on 02/02/2012 1:22:00 PM PST by Bodhi1
President Obama was trying to bring Jesus in as a class warfare warrior today, saying that as a Christian, Jesus expected him to fleece the rich:
The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the Washington Hilton, delivering remarks at an annual event that every president has attended since Dwight D. Eisenhower.“We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him,” Obama said. “Avoiding phony religiosity. … This is especially important right now when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”
A bold statement, one I suppose he thinks bolsters his position. However, there's a word in there that changes everything.
"Given."
See, Obama isn't talking about looting from those who have been "given" anything. He's talking about shaking down the producers, the "creators" of profit, those who have, through their own industry, created wealth.
Jesus never said, "Eat the rich." That was Lemmy.
If Obama really, truly believes Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” let's apply that to the recipient of government assistance. If you are given much from the benevolent government, shouldn't much be required from you?
Without a doubt.
But it is considered an outrage that we would even consider doing a urinalysis on those who collect government assistance, despite the fact that those who were forced to pay for the assistance were often willing to provide a sample.
How about those who live in government housing? Should we expect them to keep the property clean and in good repair? They are getting much, should we not expect much? And "the projects" have become synonymous with filth and squalor. Why do we not have a squad of government employees who force the people who take advantage of the coerced charity provided by the taxpayer? Why isn't much required from them?
And why aren't they required to show an increase in the skills necessary to stop being a good for nothing and start being a producer? Remember the story I put on the blog this winter about an Atlanta woman who was upset about not getting federal heating assistance? In the photo of her, you can clearly see a huge flat screen television and an XBox 360.
Why are those who enjoy the largesse of widespread government seizure of personal property allowed to spend money on such luxuries? Shouldn't much be required, including the sacrifice of high definition television until you can pay for your own heat?
Why are those enrolled in the SNAP program not assigned someone to teach them how to get the most for their food dollar, in both nutrition and value? Instead, Democrats in the Senate won't even consider a bill that prohibits that loot from being spent at strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos.
If Obama really wants those "unto whom much is given" to return much, start with those who are actually "given" their property. The rich, by and large, have created their wealth.
When Jesus said, ‘to whom much is given, much is required’, He was referring to spiritual things, like wisdom and understanding, not earthly possessions or money! Obama has NO spiritual decernment whatsoever. Therefore he just picks out verses and distorts them to mean whatever he wants them to mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
