Posted on 12/28/2004 4:25:51 PM PST by Lindykim
The Christian Underground http://www.christian-underground.com --- Socialism Isnt Christianity By Thomas R. Eddison Dec 28, 2004
On November 2, the American people overwhelmingly voted down the overtly anti-Christian far-left agenda adopted by the Democratic Party leadership. Now the Democrats have laid out a scheme to win back morality voters by subverting Christian doctrine with the claim that Jesus was a socialist.
"No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election," Senator Hillary Clinton told a Tufts University audience of 5,000 on November 10. The former First Lady told the Boston area audience of religion: "I don't think you can win an election or even run a successful campaign if you don't acknowledge what is important to people."
The strategy is to paint fiscal conservatives as un-Christian because they oppose using the state as a modern-day Robin Hood. Michael Kinsley wrote on November 7 in a house editorial for the Los Angeles Times, "Democrats seem oblivious to their platform's moral potency: innocent children suffering because their families can't get health insurance; platoons of young men and women dying in a war that didn't have to be; the pillaging of God's green Earth."
The Democrats overtly advocate a socialist agenda, which lives on today under new names, such as universal health care, the social safety net, and development assistance. And the theme is that leftists who advocate socialist government policies are generous, and those who refuse to redistribute the wealth are opposing Christian principles.
But the welfare state does not operate by the principle of moral generosity: it relies on a legalized form of theft (forcibly taking from some to give to others) and is driven by greed and envy. The welfare state breeds greed by offering wealth without work and generates envy by promoting class warfare.
The Christian principle of special consideration for the poor is a clarion call for the individual, not for the state. Jesus did not have the Good Samaritan in Luke's Gospel tell the injured man in the road to seek a government social worker. The Good Samaritan gave of what was his own willingly, not under the duress of the state. The welfare state actually encourages a spiritual laziness by implying that helping the poor is the responsibility of the state rather than a responsibility of the individual.
Consider the example of a small community of a few people to sharpen the moral clarity of this issue. Four men are stranded on a deserted tropical island. Two work hard to gather more pineapples and coconuts than they need. A third is unable to work because he has a broken leg, and a fourth is too lazy to work. While the working men have a moral obligation to share with the injured man, neither of the two who did not work have a right to take by force what is not theirs.
To claim otherwise is to deny all right to property and to make the two working men slaves of the other two. The commandments "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" establish a right to ownership of property. If we can't own property, giving of ourselves becomes impossible - as does real almsgiving.
Back on the island, if the lazy man steals pineapples from the two working men by force, then he commits a crime and violates the commandment "thou shalt not steal." Socialism is the theft and redistribution of wealth through force, whether it's done for a society of four people or one containing millions. That's why all totalitarians, from Lenin to Hitler, adopt broad socialist policies in order to enslave society. The liberals are misleading people into believing that forcibly redistributing wealth, something that would be a crime if one individual did it to another, is a moral good and a foundation of "democracy." In fact, the general election strategy of the welfare state is the whisper in the ear: "I'll give you more of the other guy's money than you'll pay in taxes."
That electoral whisper of the welfare state is the ultimate "big money" influence skewing today's elections, and the prime reason why the welfare state cannot easily be dismantled. Welfare-state recipients always see the crumbs that fall to them from the welfare state.
Except for a few who make their entire living off the state, the claim that you'll be able to steal more than you'll have to pay is always a lie. In fact, much of the money that the federal government forcibly takes in the name of federal aid never leaves Washington, D.C. The U.S. Department of Education will spend $67.7 billion this year for "children," but a hefty proportion of that money will pay for the army of more than 4,600 employees of the federal agency, along with numerous buildings and associated office costs. The cut of the boodle for the welfare state bureacracy can be in the 50 percent range. Additionally, much of the money the federal government gives to "individuals" to assist children are in the form of grants to state agencies, which take another share of the money in the form of bureaucratic costs. In the end, welfare state politicians only bribe us with part of the money they must first take from us. Working Americans will never receive as much as they'll pay to the tax man.
And therein lies the hope for ending the welfare state in America, so long as Christians are not fooled by this latest socialist propaganda barrage.
moderator@christian-underground.com http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=88 Posted to the CU: 2004-12-28 02:40:04 CST
======================================== We will Pray WHEN we want School - WHERE we want Work - The Street - The Mall - Persecute Us At Your Own Peril! The Christian Underground http://www.christian-underground.com
NEVER..NEVER..EVER post directly from the true source. That way, no one on Free Republic can bad-mouth you! (no offense, Lindykim, I know you were fooled this time.)
The author's name is; Thomas R. Eddlem. The article is; "The Last Word" published in The New American, Vol. 20, No. 26, December 27, 2004, which just happened to beat Thomas R. "Edison" by one day.
But thanks, Lindykim for the post.
The following is excerpted from Rerum Novarum, written by Pope Leo XIII in 1891......
22....If incentives to ingenuity and skill in individual persons were to be abolished, the very fountains of wealth would necessarily dry up; and the equality conjured up by the Socialist imagination would, in reality, be nothing but uniform wretchedness and meanness for one and all, without distinction....
23. From all these conversations, it is perceived that the fundamental principle of Socialism which would make all possessions public property is to be utterly rejected because it injures the very ones whom it seeks to help, contravenes the natural rights of individual persons, and throws the functions of the State and public peace into confusion. Let it be regarded, therefore, as established that in seeking help for the masses this principle before all is to be considered as basic, namely, that private ownership must be preserved inviolate.
35. On the use of wealth we have the excellent and extremely weighty teaching, which, although found in a rudimentary stage in pagan philosophy, the Church has handed down in a completely developed form and causes to be observed not only in theory but in everyday life. The foundation of this teaching rests on this, that the just ownership of money is distinct from the just use of money.
36....No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, or even to give to others what he himself needs to maintain his station in life becomingly and decently: "No one is obliged to live unbecomingly." [12] But when the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains. "Give that which remains as alms." [13] These are duties not of justice, except in cases of extreme need, but of Christian charity, which obviously cannot be enforced by legal action.
Seems to me that the IRS, and our system of taxation, reduces charitable "contributions" (more accurately charitable extortions) to a legal action. This is in direct contravention to the Teaching of Leo XIII. Socialists reinterpreted his beautiful document in 1931...and gave but lip service to the idea that Socialism was bad. They repackaged it in the name of "Social Justice," and have been promoting it ever since.
Ummmm... I just looked at the New American, where you noted here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/12-27-2004/index.htm
And that story is listed as
Socialism Isn’t Christianity
The welfare state does not operate by the principle of moral generosity; it relies on a legalized form of theft.
However, since I do not get the magazine, I can not know for sure who the author is, nor the entire story contents. But it appears, at least at first blush, that this story may be a completely accurate reflection of what was posted. Although I do not know for sure...
Excellent post. Thank you.
Once when Rick Santorum was trying to promote a partial privitization of SS, he was still trying to defend the concept of that socialistic program. I told him that maybe, just maybe, if parents knew that they would have to depend on their children in their old age that they might treat their children better. As you said, with this governmental 'safety net' there is no consequence for their bad acts. They rely on the government, not on family.
You are free to give everything that you own to anyone that you want.
You are not free to tell me or force me at the point of a gun to do the same.
Do property rights and personal freedom mean anything to you at all?
algore, is that you? Just kidding.
You are absolutely right, but reading your post reminded me of algore in his 'up is down' speech a few years ago.
Aw, c'mon lady. Are you really trying to say the IRS is bad? ;-)
Thanks for the ping and your post. This is a great article.
Good choice of tagline since it is obvious you are confused about this.
Thank you for your compliment and thank you for your excellent post, as well. Our minds are moving in the same groove.
You hit a home run with this observation: "I told him that maybe, just maybe, if parents knew that they would have to depend on their children in their old age that they might treat their children better." Exactly. To use an obvious example, a hundred years ago, if a man walked out of his wife and kids, he walked out of his old age pension (unless he remarried, perhaps illegally, and started a new family).
In a society where the family is the primary, if not only, provider of health and welfare services, it makes sense for an individual to form and maintain strong family ties: to get married, to stay married, to have children and maintain good relations with them. The family also had a vested interest in its members both making something of themselves and behaving themselves, because members depend on one another and don't want to be responsible for the consequences of misbehavior.
In today's society, thanks to socialism (especially social security), the high taxes necessary to pay for all the social programs, and child labor and mandatory education laws, children are an expensive luxury. This is not only true in other western countries, but even amongst the middle class in third world countries. They send their children to school, want them to attend college and even discourage them from working (so as to spend more time studying). They can't afford large families, as well.
And thank you for your kind words.
Just wondering about these government programs . . .
Did these social engineering 'geniuses' not count on human nature or foresee the possible outcomes of the programs -- the unintended consequences. That's just stupidity.
OR
Were they aware that the breakdown of the family could, and logically would, come to be? Was that the goal? That's pure evil.
Either way, now that we know better we must work to correct the damage that's been done and stop future damage. SS must be phased out over time. We cannot break the promise to those at, near, or in retirement, but at the same time, we cannot saddle our children and grandchildren with the horrendous burden that this program will carry.
Same with the other welfare programs. There has to be a date certain that if you are born after said date, there are no benefits. Sadly, we have breeded a few generations of people who have no concept of anything but living on the dole. But, even this uncompasssionate conservative wouldn't cut those people off right now if we can end it for future generations.
snip...The more the government does for the elderly, the less able and willing children will do for their own aged parents. The more the
Exactly. Good example of this occured in France last summer. Do you recall the heat wave that sent thousands of 'adult children' scurrying to the beaches while leaving their elderly parents to die in the heat?
That point will be reached within 7 years.
The collapse of the dollar heralds the beginning of that process but its acceleration into hyperinflation and federal insolvency will take our breath away. The only thing you can do to protect yourself is to squirrel away your net worth into non-dollar denominated assets.
BUMP
Whatever. I do subscribe, and have for over 12 years.
I suspect that you really don't want to start an argument about who is the author, or where it was published; you only want to discredit me. Go right on ahead, woodb01, I am quite used to it by now, even though you may appear to be a bigotted, ignorant, foolish person for trying. No offense.
I believe that part of the Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of the family....I'd have to re-read it to be certain....but I believe that it is a stated goal. The 'side effects' of this social welfare safety net may be part of the plan, not an unintended consequence.
Designer,
Consider this possibility. The article was posted on Christian Underground the day after it was published at the New American.
Further consider that rather than any grand scheme, the person who posted it here made a mistake and instead of the author's correct name being spelled out completely that Thomas ED_____ could have come out as Thomas Edison. Ever hear of him? Yeah, that was misspelled too, but even a spell checker wouldn't pick that up that error.
Another poster said that the title was correct and so is the article and the article is a good one. Don't shoot the poster for a typo.
I believe that you are right though I too would have to dig up my copy and read it (or do that internet search thingy) to be sure. So you come down on the side of an evil schemers rather than well meaning idiots?
When I was younger and didn't believe that anyone could be that stupid, I would have assigned them to the evil schemers category too. Now that I realize how stupid people can be -- your ping to the other post more than adequately demonstrated the stupidity of the left -- I am not sure which it is.
Thank-you Badray! Yours is a voice of reason in what amounts to a tempest in a teapot.
Sheesh. Now you did it. My reputation is ruined. I'm supposed to be the guy that stirs up trouble where there is none. Now, I'm 'the voice of reason.'
Or did I do that? ;-)
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.