Compelled Compassion
Posted on October 28, 2008
Filed Under Politics, Reason, Religion, Socialism |
I’m back.
The recent comments by Barack Obama have been sufficient to wake me from a long hibernation in order that I may address the issue of distribution of wealth—i.e. socialism—that he espouses.
Recently I was involved in a conversation with a co-worker who is a legal citizen of America, but is originally from El Salvador. The man is of my same religion, so on principle, we agree about how America should be run, the expectations of and for government, as well as the intended limitations thereof; however, on this particular issue—wealth redistribution—he disagreed with me, stating that in matters of helping to aid the less fortunate, government can help.
My contention was and remains that the government has no place inserting itself into the personal charitable relationship between giver and receiver. By what right does government determine how much charity I have, how much benefit my beneficiary will receive, or how much it can hold in reserve for facilitating (i.e. compelling) the transaction? There is no such stated law in the Constitution, and the only implication of such was illicitly sold to the desperate masses by FDR in what is known as the New Deal (which could just as well be called the Raw Deal).
To better understand this necessary limitation of government, we have to understand the origin of charitable action, or at least the predominant philosophy that has been so successful in making charity such an ingrained part of our collective conscience—Christianity, or more specifically, the teachings of Jesus Christ.
(It’s important for me to make that distinction between Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ because the confused, self-contradictory and often perverted mess that carries the umbrella of “Christianity” these days is, sadly, a far cry from the intents and purity of the teachings of Christ.)
It may not have originally been Jesus who taught that men (referring to mankind) should take care of one another and help each other to provide for every needful thing, at least not by the name of Jesus Christ, but there is no question that the origin of the teaching is one and the same. All moral teaching and tradition can trace its roots to one common source, no matter what form it may have taken over the years of human (mis)interpretation, usurpation and bastardization. Humanity has a common origin and a common destiny, and as hard as we try to screw things up (some more intentionally than others), our moral compass is still collectively attracted to the same heavenly body: God.
So whether it was first taught by Christ known as Jesus, or Christ known as Jehovah—who, for those of you who may not have known this, are the same being—the origin of charity is still Christ. Therefore, if we are to understand what Christ intended by His teaching, we have to look to the most obvious place, i.e. his collection of teachings (the entire collection, not just the incomplete and somewhat tainted record of the Jews).
Nowhere in any of Christ’s teachings does He command, insinuate or suggest that there should be any form of mediator for man’s humanity to man except Christ Himself. No person or collection of people is justified in compelling one person of means to be charitable to another person of lesser means. The consequences of such compulsion are not only instability, they result in the condemnation of all parties involved.
The instability in such a system comes thanks to the lawyers. You see, in order for a mediator to take from one and give to another, appropriate definitions of “means” and “lesser means” must be agreed upon. That alone opens the transaction up to an unending game of lawyer-ball with both sides squabbling eternally over definitions of words like “is” and other such complexities. What one person or group considers to be “means” may just as well be considered by another to be “lesser means.” Without some absolute definition of both, how can either litigant claim to be right? When the boundaries are forever subject to slippage, the structure is forever in danger of corrosion and collapse.
Worse still, compelled charity results in the condemnation of all of the parties involved. While the instability of such charitable “nannyism” will ultimately result in the failure of the nanny system, the spiritual implications are far graver, but only when one understands the intent of the instruction to begin with.
As stated previously, humanity shares a common destiny, which in a nutshell, is to become God. Not to live with God in a state of endless praise to God, or to somehow mysteriously become a part of God, but literally, to become as God is: an independent, perfect and eternal republic—another link in an eternal chain of such exalted beings that have existed, not since the beginning of time, but even since before time was reckoned, and will continue with equal indefinity. We have to understand that; it’s a basic and fundamental truth that to arrive at a desired destination, we have to have a clear vision of what that destination is. So let’s be clear about it with no apologies or equivocation.
Unfortunately for us, there will be no magic words or ceremonies that will transform us from our current flawed state to a state of exalted perfection. We have to earn it. We have to become it, which like it or not, is a function of our choices. This is why Lucifer was cast out of heaven for rebellion—he sought to take away the agency of man, and by so doing, proved that he did not or could not confirm and execute the laws of the universe. In that moment, his destruction was assured because nothing can exist in violation of the laws of the universe, at least not for long.
Likewise, when Christ teaches us that we should be charitable to one another, it is with the intent that we choose to follow and be sanctified in selflessness, taking one more step closer to Him. When any person or people steps in the way of that sanctification, it is only to their own condemnation. Government has no right or rule in this domain and when it tries to interfere, it makes of itself a thief, stealing that which belongs to one and giving to another based on its own definitions and determinations. It effectively places itself above God, not in the role of God, but exactly in the role of God’s enemy (Satan) by compelling the obedience of man in violation of the universal law of agency.
You may argue that it’s for a greater good; that were it not for government intervention, many of the less fortunate would be lost and forgotten, forced to suffer and die in poverty. It’s a harsh reality, but that’s true; however, that suffering will be answered on the heads of the people of means who know who they are, who are within reach of those who suffer, and choose to do nothing. Even with the intervention of government on behalf of the down-trodden, the individual is not guiltless. Allowing violation of the laws of agency to be perpetrated against anyone, even yourself, is to become party to the offense and to share in the same condemnation that befalls the perpetrator. Man’s responsibility is to fight, even to the death, to preserve the laws that have been established and sustained by eternity, of which the agency of man is one. Failure to engage in the war does not excuse the warrior, but only serves to condemn them further.
Finally, the third party involved is the beneficiary. It’s easy to allow our emotions to get the better of us and think that this person is the innocent victim. Again, it’s a harsh reality, but the guilt lies with this person as well. It is better to die and enter into the rest of the Lord than to allow our temporary sufferings to make us party to the violation of the law. Admittedly, it’s easy to sit here and write this in the comfort of a warm home and full stomach; but the immediacy of circumstances is hardly justification for ignorance or rebellion against the laws by which we are created and have our being, and is certainly powerless to remove the condemnation coincident to such rebellion.
See, Christ taught us charity to make us charitable, to make us better than we are. If we are compelled to charity by government or any entity, we lose all benefit to be gained in the sacrifice. We lose all claim to the blessings promised to the charitable. In other words, we learn nothing, we gain nothing.
We have to stop seeing this world and the universe that surrounds it with such myopic vision.
So when Barack Obama speaks of redistribution of wealth, wearing the mantle of savior that he has so willingly accepted from his supporters, he is speaking with the beguiling forked tongue of that age-old serpent; the same who has represented himself as Christ to generation after generation, from the Garden of Eden to the Halls of Congress.
Listen to him if you want. Be flattered by him if you want. Believe him if you want. That’s the price of agency.
Just remember: the law holds guilty the participant as well as the perpetrator.
Comments
Leave a Reply