Posted on 03/23/2007 1:58:48 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
What is inherently immoral about socialistic endeavors is the effort to equalize economic conditions by forcibly redistributing wealth. To get this done, the right to private property, which God gives in the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, is violated. And charity, which according to the Scriptures is supposed to spring willingly from the heart, is instead coerced.
(Excerpt) Read more at intellectualconservative.com ...
ping
ping
The Constitution limits the power of government, after all. You remember, back in the days when we actually paid attention to such trivialities....
I'm certainly no supporter of any type of legislation such as this, and can't see how the Bible plays into any of it, but how exactly does the Constitution, in your opinion?
The Constitution lists the areas in which the government can involve itself. Government-run health care (which is, I believe, what he is talking about) is not listed among them.
Our health insurance is only remotely 'private' as it stands. It is getting more socialized every day. The feds are controlling everything. Latest (due for implementation on May 23 this year) is that all standard health care business transactions will be required to use a single identifier for each provider.
Why do the feds insist that all providers have one and only one number to be used in health care? They can't take over a disjointed system and then fix it. They must force the private sector to unify everything so they can then take it over.
We can moan all we want but the system is already showing all the marks of a government system. Hence people will begin more and more to hate it. Once we are all convinced that it is a 'bad' system and that it is a 'private' system they will have no trouble getting us to accept a socialized system because we are sheeple.
Well, no it's not specifically in there, though neither are about 99 percent of the laws. Congress might argue with you though that the Preamble which states that one of the reasons for the Constitution is to promote the general welfare, and Article I, Section 8 which gives the Congress the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States gives them that authority.
I'm not sure, but perhaps the courts have ruled differently on the meaning of that. Do you have any other information?
"And charity, which according to the Scriptures is supposed to spring willingly from the heart, is instead coerced."
Liberal/Leftist "Christians", and now some Evangelical Christians have missed this entirely.
It is not a faith-based Christian who would say: "Gee, here is a great benevolence that would be great to do. So, let's go get Caesar to take some money away from everyone, give that money to us and we'll sort out who gets some back."
No.
Faith-based Christians would simply do that benevolence themselves, trusting in their faith that with prayer and God's help the actions needed to raise the funds from people willing to volunteer those funds will be found.
Somehow, God will open the hearts of as many people as we need to help us, when, through faith we pursue any benevolence towards others. Christian "sharing the wealth" means simply "by choice" and "when so moved to that choice by faith", to share the wealth God has bestowed on each of us. Its does not involve taking by force of government anything from anyone.
Habitat for Humanity, a predominately Christian charity, has probably put more American poor people in their own homes than all the takings for that purpose through the federal government.
What is an HMO, really?
Federal socialism is both unbiblical and unconstitutional (see amendment X).
A great article.
When I first hastily glanced at the headline, I thought it said "umbilical socialism": a good name for the perpetual dependence of the infantilized electorate on the State.
That's a very good point. We need to be more vigilant about power grabs and usurpations of the reserved powers of the states and the people (Amendment X).
Do you think that stops Washington? You have just identified the single biggest problem I have with the federal government - it eagerly oversteps its bounds. That the power grab happens with the full participation of the Washington establishment of both parties does not legitimize it in the slightest.
If a power is not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states. If the ability to limit a right is not listed in the Constitution, then the right belongs to the People. Amendments X and IX, respectively. Perhaps the least-read (or at least most often ignored) paragraphs in DC.
Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Are you any more qualified than, say the USSC to decide for America what laws are constitutional and what aren't? That's what elections are for. we all have differing opinions on what is legitimate and what isn't, so that and a dollar will buy you a fair cup of coffee.
If a power is not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states. If the ability to limit a right is not listed in the Constitution, then the right belongs to the People. Amendments X and IX, respectively. Perhaps the least-read (or at least most often ignored) paragraphs in DC.
So then you would agree that the gay marriage issue is properly a state issue? So by your definition, every citizen has a right to an F-18 in their driveway? Or can the government enforce reasonable limitations? How about free speech? Can the government enforce a law preventing someone from shouting fire in a crowded theater?
So then you would agree that the gay marriage issue is properly a state issue?
I would. Unless and until an amendment to the Constitution is passed making this a federal matter, this is solely the province of the states to decide as they see fit.
So by your definition, every citizen has a right to an F-18 in their driveway? Or can the government enforce reasonable limitations?
"Provide for the common defense" is listed in the Consitution as being the role of the government.
How about free speech? Can the government enforce a law preventing someone from shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a free speech issue. If direct harm to persons or property is a foreseeable inevitable consequence, then it is properly the province of the government, as listed in the Constitution. Free speech doesn't enter into it. What limits would you put on free speech?
Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Are you any more qualified than, say the USSC to decide for America what laws are constitutional and what aren't? That's what elections are for.
I guess you consider the Constitution to be one of those "living documents", then. Not me - I don't think Constitutionality is subject to popular vote.
Free speech doesn't enter into it. What limits would you put on free speech?
Very few. And as with any other enumerated right, consistent with the responsibility of government to protect all of its citizens. But free speech does enter into it. The "purists" here on FR would say you cannot limit it in any way, but only punish if harm comes directly from it.
I guess you consider the Constitution to be one of those "living documents", then. Not me - I don't think Constitutionality is subject to popular vote.
Then we are in agreement. I'm not sure what your issue with me was to begin with. When issues of interpretation of the Constitution arise, the USSC is the body empowered by the Constitution to make the decisions. If we don't like their decision, we move to amend the Constitution, not just bellyache like so many here do.
So exactly where do we disagree?
The "purists" here on FR would say you cannot limit it in any way, but only punish if harm comes directly from it.
First of all, I don't see how being a Constutional purist is worthy of the derision implied in your quote marks, but there's a larger, more troubling issue underlying your post.
What limits (not related to direct harm arising from it) do you think the government can place on free speech?
To begin with, there is no such thing. Our Constitution was a patchwork of words designed to try and get a ratification. It was never what some believe, a smooth development of absolute concepts and statements about everyone's responsibilities, powers and rights. It was purposefully vague in many aspects to encourage everyone to come together. Any reading of the history of the Constitutional Convention and a reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers will confirm that.
The Founding Fathers, as great as they were, left much to be decided either through the courts or through the Congress. It was extremely tricky to get the Southern states on board with the slavery issue hanging as it was over the proceedings and threatening to collapse everything.
The Constitution was anything but pure, and definitive, as 200 years of court decisions have reflected.
Nor is my intention to deride. Why is the 1st Amendment any different from any other rights amendment? The purists would have us believe that the 2d places no restrictions on the ownership of any kind of weapon. If someone misuses a weapon to break the law, then they should be punished. So if that is so, then the same holds for the 1st.
But what the purist always forget, none of the rights amendments were intended to put the people or the government into harm's way.
What limits (not related to direct harm arising from it) do you think the government can place on free speech?
There are many restrictions on free speech. I believe almost any political speech is protected as long as it does not carry threats with it. Threatening speech is not protected, nor is speech designed specifically to incite or provoke violence. But I'm not going to go into all of the speech restrictions, since there are thousands.
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.