I’m Sick of It
OK, I’ve tolerated it long enough. I’ve heard it countless times from the likes of Alan Colmes, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton.
What is it?
Let me point you to a story over at CNN to explain a little better:
I’m looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, ” Patriot Pastors” and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy, our sorry education system.
Essentially, it’s the old “Jesus was a liberal” line.
Let me preface this again with the Libertarian mantra. I believe in a reckless devotion to Liberty. I believe a man should be able to live freely, worship freely, sin freely, and die freely in a country that believes whole-heartedly in freedom, and only tolerates laws for the tangible benefit of its citizens.
That means that I’m against, and I mean really against, the agenda of the majority of the Republican base. I’m against the ban on gay marriage, I’m against decency laws (censorship), I’m against blue-laws, I’m against the prohibition of drugs like weed, and I’m against the buddy-buddy relationship between the evangelical church (or any religious organization) and the government. So I too wish that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the others would get off the stump and quit trying to legislate Christian principles into our laws.
OK, now that that’s said, let’s tackle the ridiculous notion (that many well-meaning Christians have bought into) that we as Christians should, if we are truly good Christians, endorse Liberalism.
First let’s cover why this has become a popular idea.
Essentially, since Jesus cared about the poor, the sick, and pretty much any social class of person who has been dealt a losing hand in the game of life, we should also care about them. I totally agree!
However, next comes the GIANT leap in logic. Up til now, I was with you. The poor should be cared for, the sick should be healed, and the outcasts should be embraced. But when we start taking that policy (a good policy) and mandating that EVERYONE adopt it (an essential pillar of socialism, taking a well-intentioned idea, and making it universally mandatory), we get right back to the legislation of morality and forced charity.
I agree that it’s horribly disengenuous for a Christian to want to have the Government ban gay marriage for them, but won’t let the Government touch their money to give to the poor. That seems completely selfish and bigoted.
Which is why I’m consistent.
I believe in constitutional liberty, capitalism, and small government on all fronts. I needn’t worry about looking hypocritical, because I’m not.
I believe that Rod Parsley and James Dobson are just as wrong in their ignorant call for a government sanctioned religious theocracy as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are about their call for government supported welfare, affirmative action, and healthcare. Since when did it become the government’s job to fight AIDS? Give me a break!
Seriously, I’m just sick of it!
Christians, be good Christians! But quit trying to make up your failure of being salt and light with this pompous campaign to make everyone act the way you think they should!!! Take a history lesson or two and see where that leads us. In fact, take a look at just about any middle eastern country and see where it leads to.
OK, my rant is over now :-) Have a nice day!
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: show_manual_subscription_form() in /nfs/c03/h05/mnt/48320/domains/nathanrice.org/html/wp-content/themes/ElegantBlue/comments.php on line 108
I agree with you in a lot of ways- although I have to admit, on the points I do agree on, I really don’t WANT to agree. In the last few months, as the result of talking to you, others, and several books I’ve read, I’ve moved a fair bit to the right on certain social/economic issues. Don’t get me wrong, I still place myself definitely in the liberal camp on just about everything, but I’ve shifted my views on a number of things.
But the major thing I disagree on, is that libertarians seem to approach economics from the perspective that, any money you can legally earn, you are completely entitled to. I would be more inclined to agree with that if I thought our current incarnation of capitalism was roughly fair in how it handed out rewards for ingenuity and dedication, but it obviously isn’t. In fact it seems to be fairly arbitrary. Creativity and work ethic don’t seem to correlate terribly strongly with economic standing. So the argument that we shouldn’t take money away from those who’ve amassed great personal wealth to benefit the poor simply because they’ve ‘earned’ it seems weak to me. Unfortunately, due to both the ineptitude of liberal politicians and the opposition of conservative politicians, all the bills intended to do so have been terribly half-assed.
Now, I used to believe, along with the standard liberal line, that what amounted to a universal minimum quality of life, provided by the government and including food, shelter, healthcare, and education, was the answer to all of that. The problem with that view is it treats the symptoms rather than the disease (incidentally, that’s how I’ve come to view affirmative action as well). Sure, I never believed that such a welfare-dependent life should be enjoyable, but many people would nevertheless remain dependent on the system and never make any effort to better themselves.
Still, there are those who do work all their lives with every intention of bettering themselves, but are simply never able to do so. Even if we argue that these people should be able to find opportunities and haul themselves up by their bootstraps, we ignore their children. Should the children suffer for the laziness, bad business decisions, bad luck, whatever you wish to call it, of their parents? What if we ensured that all children were provided free food, healthcare, shelter, and education? Poverty can generate vicious feedback loops that trap generations. Because your parents were poor, you couldn’t afford a good education, so you were poor, so your children didn’t get a good education, and so on.
You said you aren’t a hypocrite. I don’t anyone could reasonably claim you are. But obviously you don’t expect a family living in the projects to pay the same amount, in dollars, towards the war effort that you would expect from, say, Bill Gates. If it’s reasonable to apply a proportional tax towards war, why isn’t it reasonable to apply the same towards bettering the lives of the poor, especially children?
To quote Adam Smith: