Liberals try to pretend they are Christians
Democrats Hijack Christianity
Roger Banks
Monday, May 30, 2005
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.
.
|
