http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north397.html
[excerpts]
The Theology of the Welfare State
by Gary North
[snip]
THE SOURCE OF LAW
The masses' perceived source of law in any society is the god of that
society. This fact should be the starting point of all sociological
analysis. It rarely is.
Similarly, to identify the voice of authority in any society – the supreme
representative agent of that society's god – you must identify that agency
in which the masses place their greatest trust to care for them in times of
extraordinary need. The agency that brings deliverance is the agency that
speaks for God.
Historically, deliverance has been perceived as three-fold: deliverance
from famine, plague, and war. Historically, church and state have competed
for the allegiance of the masses as the primary deliverer.
[snip]
Then, beginning in the early 1960s, American courts began to invoke
previously unsuspected legal principles that forbid public references to
God as the source of healing and deliverance. This leaves the state as
society's replacement God: the divine right of the state. The divine-rights
doctrine means "no appeal beyond."
BUYING OFF THE PRIESTHOOD
To silence ministerial opposition to the healer state, the United States
government began to pressure ministers of churches to join the Social
Security System. This began officially in 1958. Ministers had to file a
form to opt out of the system. At the time, Social Security looked like a
good deal: $38 a year on average, or 1.5% on a maximum of $3,000 for a
maximum of $45. For this, the government promised to pay an old-age
pension. Ministers signed up in droves.
Because of church-state separation, ordained ministers of any church or
similar ecclesiastical organization still possess the legal option, at the
time of filing their first post-ordination income tax return, to file an
application to opt out of the Social Security system. This is part of the
Internal Revenue Code, Section 1402(e)(1). Accompanying this form must be
a statement that either he is conscientiously opposed to, or because of
religious principles he is opposed to, the acceptance (with respect to
services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner) of any
public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability,
old age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides
services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system
established by the Social Security Act) and in the case of an individual
described in subparagraph (A), that he has informed the ordaining,
commissioning, or licensing body of the church or order that he is opposed
to such insurance. . . .
This is a matter of law. The regulations are posted on-line.
Sometime around 1963, R. J. Rushdoony introduced me to a 1957 article by a
fellow Orthodox Presbyterian cleric, Francis Mahaffy. It was tiled "A
Clergyman's Security." It had been published in The Freeman. Rushdoony
encouraged me to go into the ministry. As part of his counsel, he had me
read the article.
Rev. Mahaffy argued that three of the Ten Commandments legislate against
the Social Security System, and by implication the entire welfare state:
thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt honor your
parents. He called on other clergymen to take a stand against the welfare
state by staying out of the Social Security System. His call was rarely
heeded.
I later attended a very conservative seminary for a year, but I decided not
to seek ordination. At no time during my year at seminary did I hear anyone
discuss the ministerial exemption from Social Security. I have never heard
of any seminary that has devoted so much as a one-hour lecture to the
subject of this exemption.
I think there is a reason for this reticence. Rev. Mahaffy raised the moral
and spiritual issues of the Social Security system of coercive
wealth-redistribution. He challenged this coercion as a Christian minister,
basing his objection on provisions of the Ten Commandments. The Ten
Commandments still receive lip-service in the seminaries, but not much
beyond that. Surely, the course in Christian ethics, if there is one, does
not begin with the Ten Commandments.
[snip]
CONCLUSION
I have devoted my career to a seemingly fruitless task: to develop
exegetically a biblical case against the welfare state. My marketing
challenge is this: the economists are uninterested in the Bible, and the
pastors are uninterested in economic theory. Even though they can be
downloaded for free, the 18 volumes of verse-by-verse exegesis of my
economic commentary on the Bible will be read by very few people. All were
published after my debate with Ron Sider.
To replace the welfare state, individuals and voluntary associations must
take over 100% of the state's present welfare functions, in addition to any
others that the state has not yet asserted sovereignty over. This program
of responsibility-transferal would be very expensive unless accompanied by
comparable tax cuts, which politically is not going to happen short of an
economic collapse. Churches resist such calls to social responsibility.
("The higher the price, the less the amount demanded.")
Pastors publicly call for a national revival. Yet a call for such a
Christian revival must be coupled with a call to replace the welfare state.
Any other kind of revival is morally ephemeral. It does not systematically
challenge the theology of the welfare state.
I believe that most American pastors, if given a choice between (1) a
massive revival coupled with state-replacing social responsibility by
churches vs. (2) no revival but with the continuation of the welfare state,
would choose the second option. The reason I think this is because most
pastors are enrolled in the Social Security/Medicare program when they are
not legally required to join if they have theological objections to it.
They have adopted a theology that accepts the welfare state.
The healer state will become the killer state when its budget gets tight.
The bureaucrats will then defend euthanasia in the name of the fiscally
inescapable reduction in "the quality of life" – the same way they defend
abortion today. Conclusion:
The insidious thing is that these people think they're being kind by
killing. The totalitarian beast prides himself that in his breast beats a
tender heart.
That was written by David Bayly, three months after the Bayly family went
after me on-line.
Go figure. Suggestion: do this before the state pulls your plug.
July 30, 2005
************************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
