It's The Christian Thing To Do.

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson's remarks, as expressed in a Sunday Union Leader staff editorial, suggest that it is immoral to reduce what the government spends on health and social programs.

As quoted, "When sacrifice is perpetrated on the vulnerable and weak by the strong and prosperous, it is social abuse."

He goes on to include the poor, the disabled, the blind, the unemployed, the impoverished elderly, the uninsured and children living in poverty.

His point (one of them at least) is that by reducing government's fiscal contribution to bureaucracies established to manage such things, that governor John Lynch and the New Hampshire legislature are considering immoral choices to balance the state budget.

So where do I begin?

First and foremost, by advocating for the remedy of social ills by statutory action Bishop Robinson immediately contradicts his own moral objection.  The only way for the state to attempt care for any class of persons under any set of circumstances--moral or otherwise--is to use the force of law, under threat of punishment, to extract the necessary income from whomever it chooses.  (A sacrifice perpetrated on the weak by the strong--under force of temporal law--is not also social abuse?)

Even God does not demand as much.  God gives us free will.  Bishop Robinson appears to prefer statutory taxation.  Not terribly trusting of him is it?  You'd think his priority would be to shift that kind of caring away from the state into the hands of more qualified institutions.  And he would have more than one good reason if he was not acting like a christian socialist.

It is a historical fact that social distress expands to meet the supply of publicly funded services available to reduce it, making the funds available forever inadequate to the task.

It is also a documented fact that governments--lead by sinners, as Bishop Robinson must understand we all are--will define the "vulnerable," and therefore the assistance required, based almost entirely on their own personal agendas and the human desire for power and influence--which must also include the warm feeling social justice advocates get by "doing good deeds" with the fruits of other peoples labors.  They just can't help themselves.

We end up with good deeds like helping vulnerable banks (domestic and international), auto makers, unions, ensuring young women can abort babies (in foreign countries no less), even helping states full of public sector workers, who are all worthy of our property on some notion of morality, because failing to act could make them vulnerable. 

So what is it that this kind of government cannot or should not do? There are no limits.  The government does not have to define any act as moral, it simply needs to act to prevent immorality.  And since any act must ensure equal treatment (or mistreatment),as defined by the nature of those doing the deciding, by using these rules there is nothing that cannot be considered a morally statutory obligation (to avoid creating immoral ones) and therefore no limit to the amount of property the state could confiscate to pay for these obligations.  The state simply needs to decide the obligation exists and then proceed to write laws to extract the "necessary funds."

This is the trap of the statist fiscal morality.

But no nation that has ever advanced a political agenda based on this kind of  "morality" has ever managed to do more than increase the number of those defined as vulnerable, while simultaneously reducing the resources available with which to administer to their increasing needs. 

And how moral is it to reduce one mans property against his will to address another mans perceived 'needs' when all that does is increase those in need who must then scrounge amidst a resource in spiraling decline as a result of statutory force?

History is unkind to those who pretend this process has any other logical conclusion.  And it is a path you will find increasingly difficult to stray from because of people like Gene Robinson who use mankind's declining moral authority as an excuse for the faux-morality of state mandated secular socialism--an irony that should not be lost on a cleric like Bishop Gene Robinson.

And what of free will?  God gave it to us to test us. Have we failed so miserably that even a Bishop cannot see how we might come to the defense of the vulnerable, even in the context of minimizing some state services? 

Whatever happened to a church whose role was the building and defending of the institutions that traditionally cared for the blind, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the uninsured, the impoverished elderly, or kept children out of poverty?  Are we so weak in our faith in mankind and the family to suggest that without the state to intervene the "vulnerable" would be cut loose to wander helplessly among us?  Have we abandoned that task to fast talking  politicians and career bureaucrats?  And if so at what cost to morality?

At some point the reality of the debt accumulated to sustain a system that values the costs of a state run morality over a private one becomes immoral on its own.  We institute the condition of generational debt at every level of government, passed down to our children.  To paraphrase something Dennis Miller said the other day, we just owe it forward.  There is nothing moral about this.  We should be teaching generations to give of themselves freely to help those in need, not under threat of fine or punishment by the government.  Cutting unsustainable costs and retuning that money to the people is not immoral.  It is an opportunity for them to learn to give of themselves to pick up the slack, and care for their own family members and their fellow man--which if I am not being to direct, it suitable work for an Episcopalian Shepherd and his flock.

So instead of preaching to the state of its moral obligation to confiscate the property of others to administer to the people, perhaps the Church and Bishop Robinson might look inward at how they might prevent an immoral state from robbing them of the role for which they are acutely qualified--the caring of bodies and souls--even of those who do not believe.  It would be the christian thing to do.

Note to those who might take issue with my post on the grounds that Gene Robinson is a Bishop: My Uncle was an Episcopalian Bishop (may his soul rest in peace.)

Cross Posted

Out On A Lim

Chaeyoon Lim has published an article in the American Psychological Review that... "substantiates that it is not really going to church and listening to sermons or praying that makes people happier, but making church-based friends and building intimate social networks there.”

So all that stuff about God, that's just window dressing?

“Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion, rather than theology or spirituality, that leads to life satisfaction,”

"In particular, we find that friendships built in religious congregation are the secret ingredient in religion that makes people happier.”

This looks like a conclusion looking for research to support it.  But has Chaeyoon really gone out on a Lim? 

I can't count the number of self declared "regular churchgoers" that I know or have met in my life who have no idea what it actually means to be Christian, or take away any meaningful lessons from the experience.  I see them struggle with life as if completely unequipped to handle even the simplest challenges.  Every new book, idea, plan, or program that comes along is the next path to understanding and happiness.  And for a few weeks or even months they think they have found it until it collapses under its own weight.

Church as a social mechanism, without real faith, is no different than any other substitute belief system--be it sports, hobbies, your career, that special someone, hero or celebrity worship, self obsession, campaigns and causes, zealotry, or any other of the choices we make in life to fill the godless vacuum with anything and everything but an honest faith in God.  At some point, one or more of these things will let us down and lacking any real foundation upon which to stand we may stumble or even fall.  At that point, we may blame everyone but ourselves, when as is more likely the case, we are the ones at fault for our own condition.  We are to blame because we refuse to acknowledge that human beings are flawed, as is everything they create--including the belief that the power of fellowship is what makes Christians truly happy.

True Christians can be happy in their faith anywhere at any time, independent from wealth, power, influence, association, occupation, or circumstance. But that is not to say that friendships do not make us happy.  They are essential to our social nature, and for many people function as a kind of religious support group when the world seems aligned against them and everything they think they beleive.

But the social community itself is not the same thing as faith.  It is no more evidence of faith than wearing a crucifix, showing up at church, or carrying a Bible.  These are transitory things meant to help us focus true faith through association.  They are meant to remind us of our faith when the path becomes rough and we find ourselves confronted with fear or doubt. 

So has Chaeyoon Lim successfully documented the declining role of true faith in religion?  Maybe, but I suspect we will need a larger sample.  In the mean time, if you do not yet have that real sense of faith, do not be discouraged.  Faith is a journey not just a destination.  And no matter what you may believe, it provides inner peace which in my experience cannot be duplicated any other way.  I know.  I have tried.

So what Chaeyoon Lim has done is to observe something that in some cases may be true, but that may serve to erect another false God for people to worship; that the community is what you really need, not all that junk (in the case of Christianity) about Jesus.  But this fails to explain the power of faith in the absence of the community.  It ignores the ability of the human being to grasp inner peace lacking things and associations. But it may also signal a sea change in the ability of people to hear their own faith calling them over the noise of the modern world, a problem that is as old as society itself.

Image source: mattstone.blogs.com

Cross Posted

Government As God

For as long as I can recall the New Hampshire Democrat Party has been using the "Press Release" to make up crap about people, misrepresent the words they use, change the meaning of their words, or in some cases creating out of whole cloth whatever perception they think will advance their clawing obsession with accumulating political power by damaging anyone or anything that stands between them and their Pinky and The Brain like nightly quest (minus the Brain) to take over the world.

This week, the mouthpiece of the democrats Department of Orwellian Plots Irrelevant and Evil (DOPIE), Harrell "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" Kirstien, thought he could get some much needed traction from the Christian haters in the party choir, by implying that the religions thoughts of one NH State House Republican (out of 400), was a call to establish the great American theocracy that the liberals are always warning us about.

As with most of their brain drool, this was perhaps more about poking a sleeping rabid donkey with a hot iron to get it up, angry and moving.  But Kirstein is to press releases what a five year old is to breakfast in bed.  He aint no Betty Crocker.

What was meant to be an off hand jibe for cheap political points about the need to fear anyone who believes in something more powerful than government, turned into a national news story about religious intolerance and bigotry against Christians.  And since we have to play by their rules, we have to take them at their words.

Well done.

Nothing pleases us more than seeing the bearers of the PC fire getting burned by their own creation but to have this incompetence demonstrated so close to home, aside from providing great blogging material, reminds us that democrats cannot separate anything from politics, nor are they able to view the power of government as outside any aspects of human existence.  In their heads government is essentially a secular theocracy absent any power greater than themselves where government is God and politicians are the arbiters of its will.  It is therefore incumbent on them to destroy any and all competition for that power, regardless of risk or relevance, no matter where they find it.

Those of you keeping score at home take heed.  There is not one part of your life they will not at some point try to affect with political power and influence, meaning that whenever they are in power you will be a government with a country and never the other way around.

Cross Posted

Piss Be Upon Him

 

I assume Israel bashing and pissing on Jesus are still democrat approved artistic pursuits--for which I deserve a taxpayer funded government grant.  But will Pelosi also cover my health insurance costs?  What if I don't want to be tied to my job and instead choose to become an artist who travels the country making caricatures of Mohammed (Peace Be upon Him) out of swizzle sticks?  Or would that be in violation of the Pentagon/Matthew Shepherd hate crimes/DOD funding legislation they passed last year?

 

 

The Liberals Creative-Destruction of Faith

It is worth noting that in all secular-humanist or socialist Marxist regimes it is necessary to first utilize pre-existing institutions to advance the agenda and then, systematically destroy them so that they cannot then be used in the same manner to overthrow the central government.   In a democracy you use the threat of a big, wasteful, unresponsive government to justify your ascent to power then replace it with an even bigger, more expensive, even less responsive government.

That's what the liberals have done using white guilt and what Harry Reid calls a clean well spoken black man, to grab all the levers of power.

The other essential element--particularly in America now--is to warp the foundations of religion by watering  down protestant faiths into secularist propagandists for state control.  Using social programs, or by coveting other initiatives into social based programs like environmental justice, you create dedicated propagandists and willing activists by using a secularist like evangelicalism--where the power of the state replaces the god-head as the source of revelation and salvation.  Some Congregationalist, Unitarian, and Episcopalians, among others have made this transition already.

Those denominations or churches unwilling to accede to the agenda must be dehumanized, criticized, demoralized, shunned, or buried in corruption and ill will, tied to flawed men or flawed purposes.  This drives moderates,  fence sitters,and those of weak faith away from them and toward more state-focused belief systems where the elitists in the political power structure gain more control and secure their own aristocratic credentials. 

Men of God can come from any walk of life, needing only faith to begin their journey. These men, starting from any station, can become learned in a different way, and exercise influence through the church.  This is a threat to the political class on two fronts.  First, it is more difficult to control or shape their learning and because of that their world view.  Second, these men who have become educated trough a faith in something other than just that of the state, offer the people a desirable alternative to it, and exercise significant influence as shepherds of the masses. 

Faith represents a power on earth that is rooted in a respect for a power greater than itself.  There is no equivalent in the secularist-socialist world. 

Men of faith can beg forgiveness, or have a hell they can go to, and the laws of men to punish them in the mean time.  Secularists politicians on the other hand (And religious pretenders who use religion to fool people of faith) write the laws of men to their own advantage, and have only the will of the people to fear, so they work constantly to protect themselves from that will and it shows in their work.

They prey on human weakness, fear, and misuse trust to advance their goals. 

And while it is certain that all men are weak and prone to abuses of their office, priests and pastors in America do not screw 300 million people with the stroke of a pen--only a politician can do that.