Posted on 10/16/2007 9:44:52 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Everyone knows the potent force of the Christian right in American politics. But since the mid-1990s, an increasingly influential religious movement has arisen on the left, mostly escaping the national press's notice.
This new religious left does not expend its political energies on the cultural concerns that primarily motivate conservative evangelicals. Instead, working mostly at the state and local level, and often in lockstep with unions, its ministers, priests, rabbis, and laity exert a major, sometimes decisive, influence in campaigns to enforce a "living wage," to help unions organize, and to block the expansion of nonunionized businesses like Wal-Mart.
The new religious left is in one sense not new at all. It draws its inspiration in part from the Protestant "social gospel" movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially Baptist Minister Walter Rauschenbusch, who believed that the best way to uplift the downtrodden was to redistribute wealth and forge an egalitarian society. Rauschenbusch called for the creation of a kingdom of heaven here on earth -- just as presidential candidate Barack Obama did last week at a church in South Carolina.
The popular Catholic writer John Ryan also advocated that government enact pro-union legislation, steep taxes on wealth, and more stringent business regulation. When FDR adopted several of Ryan's ideas, the priest was given the sobriquet "the Right Reverend New Dealer." His popularity reflected the tightening alliance between America's mainstream churches and organized labor. That alliance disintegrated during the 1960s, when clerics like the notorious rebel priests the Berrigan brothers began to agitate for a wider range of radical causes -- above all, a swift end to the Vietnam War. The more culturally conservative blue-collar workers who formed the union movement's core wanted no part of this.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Can government do the work of God (Charity)?
What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts (”Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” - 2 Corinthians 9:7). Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of “Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit.”
Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government “aid” to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.”
There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do “God’s Work.”
If a government takes a portion of a man’s wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman’s property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people’s tax money and does “God Work” with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an “Ungodly” man?
Today, the US government (federal, state and local) takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person’s paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God’s work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the “right things?”
Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outlined in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.
In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the “Great Society” programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to “help families and children” or “buy votes” depending on your political viewpoint.
At the beginning of the 1960’s, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970’s there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).
Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.
Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though “poor” by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.
The “Great Society” programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world results are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.
I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the “Great Society” programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the “Works of God” that the government has done or is trying to do.
I have visited many countries in which the government “guarantees” that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave “government help” for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The “worker’s paradises” of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do “God’s Work.”
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is “Who should help those in need?” I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort. “Charity,” enforced by the government, is not charity, it is extortion. “Charity,” delivered by the government, is not charity, it is a bribe which corrupts both the giver and the receiver.
Very Sincerely,
2banana
Islam doesn't count because it is a murderous death cult.
This “rise” is only true if secular humanism is considered a religion.
Actually, the “religious left” does exist. However, it isn’t made up of people who truly believe in recognized religions and who have socialist political views; rather it’s made up of virtually the whole of the left who have accepted their political credo(s) as an actual secular religion. Note however that they aren’t willing to acknowledge to themselves that their belief system constitutes a religion.
Islam is its own political entity. As was Nazism.
The secular Left has infiltrated churches and embraced homosexuality. Same sex unions are considered no longer “sinful”. Sodom and Gommorah was a mistake. Abortion is a sacrament. The faithful turn their backs on these travestities committed in the name of religion.
We are all sinners but some are seeking to celebrate their sins.
What is religious about a labor union? Encouraging identity theft? Hedonism?
Taxes do not absolve us of our obligations to donate. Taxes belong to Caesar.
IF tax payments ARE religious obligations then the State has NO role in them as we cannot be FORCED by law to contribute to some unconstitutional State religion.
The religious left derives much of is origins in Reform Judaism, as initiated by Abraham Geiger, who was sponsored principally by the Rothschild family with the specific goal of unhinging Jews from the Torah (the Rothschilds are Sabbateans or Frankists (depending upon the context), not Torah-observant Jews). What we are seeing is the misbegotten fruit of internationalist socialism sown in the 19th Century .
The ideology was born in the seventeenth century via Sabbatai Zevi, the last Jewish claimant to the title of messiah. Zevi converted to Islam under duress. Among his followers was Jacob Frank, out of whom the Donmeh grew in Turkey. The Donmeh played a major role in the Armenian genocide.
For information on their latter day heirs, go here. A quote should whet your curiosity:
To this day, pockets of radical Kabbalists throughout the world, but particularly in Asia Minor, covertly worship Sabbatai as the Promised Messiah and an incarnation of the Godhead. However, to my knowledge, and in my experience of Sabbatianism (which spans over 40 years), DONMEH-L is the only collective of Sabbatian/Frankist "fellow travellers" West of Turkey, and certainly the only one on the Internet.
It's VERY interesting stuff.
That is one of the best posts I have read here in quite some time.
It should be a syndicated column. It’s actually better than the WSJ article itself.
Great essay. Would the religious left approve of letting us keep whatever portion of our taxes goes for social programs as long as we pledged to donate that portion to a charitable organization?
And as long as the religious left approves of the government imposing taxes on us to go to government social programs, if they also approve of church pastors imposing tithes on their congregation for church sponsored social programs. To me it’s the same principle.
Religious Left doesn’t exist?
First, what makes you think “religion” in and of itself is any good?
The Bible mentions the word “religion” (I think) 36 times...35 of those times with a negative connotation.
Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton...all Reverends, all Lefties.
The “Religious Left” is way older than the “Religious Right.”
“...an increasingly influential religious movement has arisen on the left, mostly escaping the national press’s notice.”
Nah. Just every story about Hillary and her Bible studies.
Of course there’s no media bias. Right?
Religion on the Right consists primarily of personal actions which are moral and lead to a better life.
Religion on the Left consists primarily of government action which are ammoral lead to the abolition of Religion on the Right.
The main goal of “the religious left” is to destroy conservative believers. They are organized specifically to attack the “religious right”. I read a brochure once from I think that Cronkheit group the Interfaith Alliance where it didn’t mention God at all, it just talked about the danger to America posed by people like Jerry Falwell. I would have no quarrel with Jim Wallis if he promoted his “congregation” being missionaries, collecting money for the poor, building homeless shelters, finding homes for women who want to adopt rather than have abortions, etc. But I don’t know of any charity work. They DO want to increase taxes on businesses and individuals. Jesus did say render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar what is Ceasars and unto God what is God’s. I missed the part about giving unto Caesar and let Ceasar do the rest. God? Oh, yeah, he wants you to give unto Ceasar.
”Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” - 2 Corinthians 9:7
I have yet to talk to a true believer leftist that understands that there is a difference between voluntary charitable giving and compulsory forced wealth redistribution.
If any Freepers have experience with these programs, or any good links to inarguable sources of factual poverty data I would appreciate your assistance. Also any suggestions on how I can counter the propaganda I expect to encounter.
"Reuben Gist from the Capital area food bank in Washington D.C. will be presenting his Face Hunger Simulation"
Atheists?
If any Freepers have experience with these programs, or any good links to inarguable sources of factual poverty data I would appreciate your assistance. Also any suggestions on how I can counter the propaganda I expect to encounter.
"Reuben Gist from the Capital area food bank in Washington D.C. will be presenting his Face Hunger Simulation"
bkmrk
Sure you can be ‘religious’ (whatever that means) and be leftist. All it takes is a lack of biblical knowledge and not heeding the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Here’s the key question for anyone that says that Leftist ideas (socialism) is Godly or Christlike:
Show me where in the Bible that advocating socialism or forced wealth redistribution through the government satisfies your individual requirement to personally help the poor.
As was contained in a previous post:
”Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” - 2 Corinthians 9:7
Notice “not reluctantly OR UNDER COMPULSION”.
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.