 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
E-mail address
jfm@illinoisconservative.com
jfm@illinoisconservative.com
| Philosophy of Evil Socialism in America "The struggle of History is not between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; it is between government and the governed." Jerry McDaniel |
Purchase a book for your
library or as a gift
library or as a gift
| Philosophy of Evil Socialism In America By Jerry McDaniel Chapter 27, Continued Democracy and Social Justice |
Social Justice
In the progressive lexicon, virtually every human interaction falls under the rubric of “social justice”, from using compact
fluorescent light bulbs and driving a crossover vehicle, to tax supported education, health care and federal welfare
programs. The term was probably coined around 1840 by Jesuit Luigi Taparelli. Social justice in the political sense
generally refers to equality under the law. For the progressives, social justice refers to a perceived societal responsibility to
insure that everyone has available to them all the necessities of life. The National Association of Social Workers defines
social justice:
the redistribution of income and wealth. We will limit our discussion here to the secular concept of “public charity” and
wealth redistribution since the same moral principles apply to all aspects of social justice.
There is no doubt that the secular concept of charity had its beginning in the religious community, particularly in the Bible
precepts of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The most often quoted source book to justify government welfare programs is
the Bible. For example, Jesus, speaking of the Day of Judgment said in Matthew 25:34-40,
In the Old Testament, Isaiah 58:6-7 God says,
Perhaps I can best illustrate the difference between Christian charity and progressive charity with the parable of the “Good
Samaritan” found in Luke 10:30-35,
Had the Samaritan been a socialist or a progressive, he would have demanded money from the passers-by and used it to
hire someone else to take the man to the inn and tend to his wounds. In addition, he would have demanded the state pay
the innkeeper for the man’s care. Acts of charity, in the Bible, are personal and individual duties. There is nothing in the
bible to justify “robbing Peter to care for Paul”.
Historically, churches have maintained special funds donated by the membership for the purpose of caring for the needy.
In the first church at Jerusalem, a special department was set up to care for the needy, widows and orphans. In Acts 6,
Luke records,
The laws of nature and of God require that the sick and needy be cared for by the community when necessary. However,
there is a hierarchy of responsibility that does not include the federal government. The first responsibility falls on the
individual, then the family, friends, town, county and eventually the state, in that order. There is nothing in the Constitution
that authorizes the federal government to use tax monies to provide charity to individuals.
Dr. Walter E. Williams tells the story of Davy Crockett, when he was a member of Congress, speaking in opposition to a
relief measure to provide $10,000 to assist the widow of a naval officer. In his floor speech, Crockett is quoted as saying,
Lawrence Reed, writing for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, quotes President Grover Cleveland. In his statement
accompanying his veto of an 1887 appropriations bill that would have provided $10,000 in aid to Texas farmers suffering
through a drought. Cleveland wrote…
Before moving on to another subject we should also answer the oft-made claim that Jesus and the Apostles practiced
socialism. There is no Biblical evidence that the purse carried by Judas Iscariot as treasurer for the group contained
anything more than expense money for their travel and work and probably for alms. Some of the Apostles, like Peter were
married. There is no indication that the families shared a common purse, common property, or common dwellings.
Acts 4:32 is also used by progressives to substantiate the practice of communal living.
There are several things about this passage of scripture that are ignored by those who use it to defend socialism or
communism. The book of Acts is an historical record, not a doctrinal treatise. When reading about historical events, unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise, it should be considered doctrinally neutral. An historical event recorded in the Bible
may properly be used as an example of a Biblical truth, but it should never be used to establish doctrine unless the context
clearly demands it. Some of the early churches did embrace an early form of socialism. In each case they did so
voluntarily, however, and there is no indication that they did so with the approval of God. There are at least two good
reasons to believe otherwise. First, the practice was soon abandoned. Second, the early church had little more success
with their socialist practices than did the colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth. The Apostle Paul discusses the experience
with the practice in the church at Thessalonica…
This statement by Paul later came to be referred to as “the protestant work ethic” and is never quoted by a progressive to
justify the concept of communal property.
Redistribution of wealth and income is a basic tenet of social justice for progressives. Inheritance taxes are the primary
means for redistributing wealth and income taxes are the primary means of redistributing income. In 2010 we spent
$2,235,000,000,000 or 35% of our national budget, on transfer payments to individual citizens, not counting Social
Security. Transfer payments are monies taken by the government in taxes from one group of citizens and given to another
group. Since money is fungible we can say that $1.29 trillion of those transfer payments, the amount of the budget deficit,
was borrowed money and must be paid back at some time in the future. You do not have to be an economist to understand
these numbers are unsustainable. Our children and grandchildren will be bankrupt the day they are born.
In the progressive lexicon, virtually every human interaction falls under the rubric of “social justice”, from using compact
fluorescent light bulbs and driving a crossover vehicle, to tax supported education, health care and federal welfare
programs. The term was probably coined around 1840 by Jesuit Luigi Taparelli. Social justice in the political sense
generally refers to equality under the law. For the progressives, social justice refers to a perceived societal responsibility to
insure that everyone has available to them all the necessities of life. The National Association of Social Workers defines
social justice:
“Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities.” In
another place NASW says, “According to social work philos-ophy … Peace is not possible where there are gross
inequalities of money and power, whether between workers and managers, nations and nations or men and women.”
the redistribution of income and wealth. We will limit our discussion here to the secular concept of “public charity” and
wealth redistribution since the same moral principles apply to all aspects of social justice.
There is no doubt that the secular concept of charity had its beginning in the religious community, particularly in the Bible
precepts of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The most often quoted source book to justify government welfare programs is
the Bible. For example, Jesus, speaking of the Day of Judgment said in Matthew 25:34-40,
- “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave
me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me.’”
“Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and
gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee
sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?’ And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
In the Old Testament, Isaiah 58:6-7 God says,
- “Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the
oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the
poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself
from thine own flesh?”
Perhaps I can best illustrate the difference between Christian charity and progressive charity with the parable of the “Good
Samaritan” found in Luke 10:30-35,
“ And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which
stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance, there came
down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when
he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought
him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them
to the host, and said unto him, ‘Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will
repay thee’.”
Had the Samaritan been a socialist or a progressive, he would have demanded money from the passers-by and used it to
hire someone else to take the man to the inn and tend to his wounds. In addition, he would have demanded the state pay
the innkeeper for the man’s care. Acts of charity, in the Bible, are personal and individual duties. There is nothing in the
bible to justify “robbing Peter to care for Paul”.
Historically, churches have maintained special funds donated by the membership for the purpose of caring for the needy.
In the first church at Jerusalem, a special department was set up to care for the needy, widows and orphans. In Acts 6,
Luke records,
“And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians
against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the
multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, ‘It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve
tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,
whom we may appoint over this business’.”
The laws of nature and of God require that the sick and needy be cared for by the community when necessary. However,
there is a hierarchy of responsibility that does not include the federal government. The first responsibility falls on the
individual, then the family, friends, town, county and eventually the state, in that order. There is nothing in the Constitution
that authorizes the federal government to use tax monies to provide charity to individuals.
Dr. Walter E. Williams tells the story of Davy Crockett, when he was a member of Congress, speaking in opposition to a
relief measure to provide $10,000 to assist the widow of a naval officer. In his floor speech, Crockett is quoted as saying,
- “Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of
the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy
for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument
to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor
knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as
members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” (emphasis added)
Lawrence Reed, writing for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, quotes President Grover Cleveland. In his statement
accompanying his veto of an 1887 appropriations bill that would have provided $10,000 in aid to Texas farmers suffering
through a drought. Cleveland wrote…
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty
of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner
properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power
and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that,
though the people support the Government, the Govern-ment should not support the people."
Before moving on to another subject we should also answer the oft-made claim that Jesus and the Apostles practiced
socialism. There is no Biblical evidence that the purse carried by Judas Iscariot as treasurer for the group contained
anything more than expense money for their travel and work and probably for alms. Some of the Apostles, like Peter were
married. There is no indication that the families shared a common purse, common property, or common dwellings.
Acts 4:32 is also used by progressives to substantiate the practice of communal living.
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of
the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”
There are several things about this passage of scripture that are ignored by those who use it to defend socialism or
communism. The book of Acts is an historical record, not a doctrinal treatise. When reading about historical events, unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise, it should be considered doctrinally neutral. An historical event recorded in the Bible
may properly be used as an example of a Biblical truth, but it should never be used to establish doctrine unless the context
clearly demands it. Some of the early churches did embrace an early form of socialism. In each case they did so
voluntarily, however, and there is no indication that they did so with the approval of God. There are at least two good
reasons to believe otherwise. First, the practice was soon abandoned. Second, the early church had little more success
with their socialist practices than did the colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth. The Apostle Paul discusses the experience
with the practice in the church at Thessalonica…
- II Thessalonians 3:4-8:“Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night
and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an
ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not
work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all,
but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness
they work, and eat their own bread.”
This statement by Paul later came to be referred to as “the protestant work ethic” and is never quoted by a progressive to
justify the concept of communal property.
Redistribution of wealth and income is a basic tenet of social justice for progressives. Inheritance taxes are the primary
means for redistributing wealth and income taxes are the primary means of redistributing income. In 2010 we spent
$2,235,000,000,000 or 35% of our national budget, on transfer payments to individual citizens, not counting Social
Security. Transfer payments are monies taken by the government in taxes from one group of citizens and given to another
group. Since money is fungible we can say that $1.29 trillion of those transfer payments, the amount of the budget deficit,
was borrowed money and must be paid back at some time in the future. You do not have to be an economist to understand
these numbers are unsustainable. Our children and grandchildren will be bankrupt the day they are born.
| In God We Trust |
| Christian Patriots USA |