Posted on 05/29/2005 2:29:02 PM PDT by CHARLITE
With increasing regularity, leaders of the National Democratic Party are seeking support for their economic agenda in, of all places, the Bible.
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry, for example, persists in appealing to the New Testament book of James. "Faith without works is dead," he intones, suggesting that "works" here includes the works of lawmakers as they spend other people's money.
In like manner, Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is wont to quote the teaching of Jesus that "[i]nasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." According to Pelosi, doing unto the least means raising more taxes for entitlement programs. Even DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who kicked off President Bush's second term with the outburst "I hate Republicans," more recently accused the ones he hates of violating the biblical command to "love thy neighbor as thyself." He believes Republicans commit this sin by resisting efforts to enlarge the tender-loving federal bureaucracy.
Leaving aside speculation about motives, one thing is clear. Democratic leaders, by citing scripture in their condemnation of fiscal conservatives, have acknowledged the Bible as a relevant authority in matters of public policy. It is only fair, therefore, to consider the liberal economic agenda in light of the same authority.
The passages selected by liberals invariably relate to God's love for those in material need. Missing from their understanding, however, is any appreciation of God's primary emphasis on the spiritual needs of the giver, and potential giver. Indeed, the Bible-quoting Democrats seem utterly unacquainted this central theme of the Bible.
Jesus, who freely sacrificed his own life to save others, said, "it is more blessed to give than to receive." The teaching reflects Christ's deep knowledge of the human need to love and be loved through free-will giving.
Paying taxes, of course, is not a gift. It is required under penalty of law. The payment of taxes confers on the payer none of the spiritual blessings that flow from charity. With respect to the billions of dollars conscripted to fund entitlement programs, the government actually precludes the possibility of the "more blessed[ness]" promised by Christ.
It is not simply a matter of reducing the income available to potential givers. Welfare – including the welfare for the middle class known as Social Security – also taxes the purpose and the incentives for voluntary giving. When retirement is financed with money taken from the wages of strangers, and when aging parents are systematically relegated to state-funded nursing homes, a child's incentive to honor his parents with personal resources is greatly diminished, as are, of course, the resources themselves.
The government dole taxes not only income but also the impetus of neighbors, the church and other charities to lend a hand to unemployed individuals in their midst. Entitlements thus interfere with familial relationships and, contrary to Dean's invective, dampen the impulse to love one's neighbor.
Though we might wish this truth to be self-evident – that love cannot be legislated – it has been lost in the haze of our addiction to entitlements. Voluntary sacrifice, made on behalf of someone in need, is, like Shakespeare's quality of mercy, "twice blest." It blesses the one who receives and, even more so, the one who gives.
But entitlements, and the impassive spirits they arouse, diminish a good part of both of these blessings. By depleting the impetus and the purpose for voluntary sacrifice, the welfare state ultimately imposes a tax on the greater blessings that, according to Christ, flow from free-will giving.
Fiscal conservatives have explained many of the burdens of welfare – burdens on individual freedom; on the economy; on beneficiaries themselves. Despite the unassailable logic, and perhaps because of it, these arguments also contribute to the stereotype of conservatives as uncompassionate. Even the argument that entitlements visit harm on those they are designed to help, while demonstrably true, has not helped conservatives shed their reputation for being penurious and mean.
Largely unarticulated, however, is the way the entitlement system serves to obviate individual good will. Misguided government efforts to constrain the quality of mercy have a chilling effect on charity, resulting in an increasingly uncompassionate society.
The absurd implied premise of the Bible-quoting liberals is that bigger government is a way to "love thy neighbor." In fact, government programs encourage a life profoundly centered on self, and make us increasingly spectators to the plight of our neighbors.
The incongruity between big government theology and the teachings of the Bible is thus readily apparent. Entitlements place primary importance on material needs. Christ teaches his followers to "seek ye first the kingdom of God ... and all these things [food, clothing, etc.] will be added unto you."
Whereas the biblical standard requires the gift of faith, welfare subsists on fears that voluntary giving alone would be insufficient. Welfare proponents also worry about the unfairness of voluntary giving, as many choose not to give. The God of the Bible satisfies material and spiritual needs simultaneously, by conferring blessings on those who give voluntarily and sacrificially.
Christ's vision is indeed radical – as radical today as it was in the ancient world – and liberals might sincerely reject his doctrine as a basis for public policy. But intellectual honesty would require leaders of the contemporary left to admit that the Christian faith is incompatible with the ideology behind entitlement programs.
This article was first published in the May 25 edition of the Washington Examiner.
Roger Banks is an attorney and author in Washington, D.C. E-mail: rogerbanksesq@aol.com
Yes, that's a great book. As to Genesis, I'm trying to recall a single instance in which Satan speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth......
After the not to be forgotten Terri Shiavo murder and subsequent split over the issue between Christian Conservatives and Financial/Legal pubies this long time Republican suggests that the party should not take competition in the Christianity realm lightly.
Give it a rest. Every thread isn't about Terri.
Nice to talk to you after such a long time.
Well said!
I don't recall ever "talking" to you before.
Oh well..have a nice day anyway.
Have a nice day? Careful, YDH will be furious that you stole her witty exit line.
ROTFL!
The only people the demonRATs are fooling with this sort of behavior are themselves.
They are simply incapable of honest self evaluation, and they truely hate and fear the WORD and it's followers.
"Kerry, Dean, Pelosi trying to appropriate Bible for politics"
I wouldn't worry about it. They sound like fools when they try to use Scripture. If they're trying to impress anyyvalues-based communitym that community is likely holding their holds over their mouths and sniggering.
Take for example the "Least of These" quotes were also in the statement from the Pope concerning Terri's death.
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON "LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STATE: SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS" Saturday, 20 March 2004
"....I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a "vegetable" or an "animal"....
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
.....As a pledge and support of this, your authentic humanitarian mission to give comfort and support to your suffering brothers and sisters, I remind you of the words of Jesus: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me" (Mt 25: 40).
Or how about these statements from the Protestant crowds....
"....WHEREAS, Western medicine has heretofore followed both the Judeo-Christian tradition and the over 2,500 year-old Hippocratic tradition forbidding physicians to assist in the death of their patients; and
WHEREAS, The Bible teaches that God created all human life in His own image and declares human life to be sacred from conception until natural death (Genesis 1:29:6 and following); and
WHEREAS, The Bible likewise teaches that murder, including self-murder, is immoral (Exodus 20:13); and
WHEREAS, American society seems to be embracing of the "culture of death"...."
Be it therefore RESOLVED, that we the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 11-13, 1996, affirm the biblical and Hippocratic prohibitions against assisted suicide.."
...."Euthanasia is understood to be the view or practice which holds that a person has the right, and even the moral obligation, to end his or her life when it is considered to be - for whatever subjectively accepted reason "not worth living." Euthanasia advocates nearly always include in this assertion the right and duty of others, including medical personnel, to assist the person in fulfilling this purpose. Needless to say, the Orthodox Church rejects such a view, seeing such behavior as a form of suicide on the part of the individual, and a form of murder on a part of others who assist in this practice, both of which are seen as sins. Thus the Orthodox Church, in the words of 1976 Chrismms encyclical of former Archbishop Iakovos, considers "euthanasia and abortion, along with homosexuality...a...moral alienation."....
"....Today there are mounting pressures upon medical professionals, pastors, families, and individuals to hasten the death of those under their care or authority. Such hastening sometimes takes the form of direct action, such as a lethal injection. It may also take a passive form in neglect or withdrawal of the necessary means of preservation of life. Such means include medical treatment, both extraordinary and ordinary. But they also include basic provisions normally understood as care, warmth, cleanliness, food, water, and love.
Christians must distinguish between "treatment" and "care". Where medical treatment which is not gravely burdensome is necessary for an individual to continue to live, the withdrawal of such treatment - except in cases where death is imminent and inevitable and to continue such treatment would pose a grave risk or cause more burden to the patient than it would alleviate - is a violation of the image of God which all men and women bear..."
Somebody has hijacked Christianity....the problem is we are not sure who yet.
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.