The
President of the United States and virtually the entire Democratic Party
not only advocate class warfare, they proudly proclaim it from the
housetops. “The rich should pay more,” they say. “The wealthy aren’t
paying their fair share,” they proclaim. They reject free markets,
where one man freely exchanges his services with another man for his
goods. They can’t comprehend the idea that it is not a zero sum game
and that both benefit from such a transaction. They seek not equal
opportunity, but equal economic outcomes. They are OK with the fact
that 47% of all Americans pay no federal income taxes. They say that’s
only right and fair, because the lottery of life has dealt some folks a
worse hand than others and therefore those in power are entitled to
transfer money from those that “have” to the “have nots.” Let’s not
sugarcoat it. Transfer, of course, means forcefully taking money at the
point of a gun from one person and giving it to another person. That’s
what government is—power—and if you don’t pay your taxes someone with a
gun on his hip will ultimately come to your door and haul you off to
prison.
But what
about the morality of redistribution of income through the force and
power of government, i.e. taxes? Is the advocacy of conflict between
rich and poor moral? Or, for that matter, is the advocacy and
encouragement of conflict between any two individuals moral and just?
That’s the house of cards the modern Democratic Party has
built—constructing coalitions built upon envy, jealousy, and division.
They seek to divide people on the basis of age, wealth, sex, education,
type of work, geographic location, and, of course, race. It is a divide
and conquer tactic. They endeavor to cobble disparate groups together
into a winning coalition that will allow them to not only govern, but
also to steadily give themselves more and more power over the lives of
American citizens. But is such a strategy moral?
What
do traditional moral codes have to say about being jealous, having
envy, causing division, and about greed and that old word,
covetousness? The Bible, the book upon which the Founders relied for
their moral direction, (nearly two-thirds of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence had some formal training in the Bible) looks
upon jealousy, envy and greed as evil. For example, 1 Corinthians 3:3
says: “When you are jealous and quarrel among yourselves, aren’t you influenced by your corrupt nature and living by human standards?” Mark 7:22 labels “envy” as an “evil thought” and lumps it together with other things that God despises including “…stealing, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, cheating…” and other sins. As far as encouraging divisions among people is concerned, Psalms 133:1 advises us that it is good “…when brothers and sisters live together in harmony.” What does it mean to covet something? One of the definitions in myAmerican College Dictionarysaysto covet is “…desiring the possessions of another.” And God says simply, do not covet. Or to actually quote from the Ten Commandments, “You
shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on
your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” That pretty well
covers it. Any philosophy, ideology, or strategy based on dividing
people into groups and making them envious of each other or jealous of
each other is a flawed, immoral plan of action.
In
fact, the Bible encourages us to celebrate the blessings that others
receive from God. Are they wealthy? Celebrate God’s blessings. Are
they successful? Be happy for them. Are they prospering, celebrate
with them. That’s exactly what we will do if we follow Jesus’
admonition to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:31)
But,
what about the “immorality” of some people having more and others
having less? Isn’t that unjust and wrong? First of all, people succeed
and fail in a free market as they strive to produce goods and services
that they hope others will be interested in having. They succeed based
on the basis of the hard work, drive, intelligence, and the wisdom with
which God has blessed them. If they acknowledge that reality they will
then generously and freely share their abundance with others. That is
the history of America. The citizens of the United States of America
have been the most generous people on the face of the earth and in the
history of the world. This is a part of our Christian heritage
bequeathed to us by our Founders. This is a part of what some call the
“goodness” of America. Charity, of course, means love. That’s the
reason that when the church first created and implemented financial aid
to the poor and needy it was appropriately called charity. True
compassion consists of individuals freely helping others in need.
Expressing verbal concern and then using the government to spend someone
else’s money and give it to someone else is false compassion.In fact,
it is worse than false compassion. It takes
love out of the equation. It doesn’t uplift the giver or the
receiver. It discourages and demeans both. By taking away the personal
responsibility for sharing with others and replacing it with
government, compassion vanishes. Neither party is enriched spiritually
and morally as they are in a situation where one party gives out of love
and the other is blessed by that love and caring. The truth is that
true compassion consists of giving your own money cheerfully.
There
is yet another issue—fairness. Just how fair is it that the rich do
not pay more in taxes? Well, first of all, the premise is false. The
most wealthy in our land—fewerthan 10%—pay more than everyone else
combined and yet their benefits from being an American are, at best,
only marginally better than those at the bottom rung of the economic
scale. What is fair? Is it fair that 47% of all Americans pay no
federal income taxes while enjoying the benefits of American
citizenship? What standard do we use for defining fair and just? It if
was up to our Founders they would turn to the Bible for guidance. In
Deuteronomy 14:22, we are told that God expects everyone to give
one-tenth (10%) of everything they grow, harvest, or earn to Him.
Tellingly, there is no sliding scale. The rich are not told to give
more than 10% and the poor are not exempted from giving their 10%. Of
course, throughout the Bible, believers are encouraged to give
generously and while 10% may be an expected amount, everyone is expected
to give to the Lord as they are blessed, and many do give much, much
more. But the key word is “give,” not “compelled or forced.” In fact,
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 9:7, “You shouldn’t be sorry that you gave or feel forced to give, since God loves a cheerful giver.”Real
compassion is love based and can only come freely from someone who
gives because they want to give. Being forced to pay taxes to give to
another is a deadly distortion of the idea of giving to the poor and
others in need. It corrupts something beautiful and turns it into
something ugly. It fractures the beautiful relationship between the
cheerful giver and the grateful recipient. Real compassion lifts up
both parties, giving moral strength to both the giver and the receiver.
So
what? Conservatives and Republicans are no less sinners than Democrats
and liberals. As individuals, they both stand as deeply flawed
individuals before God and his standards of perfection. Yes, that is
true, but there is something much more dangerous in play. All men are
jealous and envious and have all the other human defects, yet it is very
important as to what we believe as individuals. It is one thing as an
individual to fail morally. It is entirely another thing to support and
encourage others to act immorally. It is similarly hazardous to endorse
policies and programs that are in conflict with God’s eternal
verities. It is as wrong-headed to be consciously jealous or envious of
others and encourage such jealously and envy, as it is to hate, murder
or break any other of God’s Commandments. That’s how serious God is
about jealousy and envy.
So
what about the morality of class warfare as it is promoted by our
President and by the vast majority of the Democratic Party? You will
have to make up your mind for yourself, but as for me, it seems pretty
clear that such an ideology or strategy is clearly immoral and runs
counter to the faith and perspective of the Founders.
No comments:
Post a Comment