Friday, October 07, 2005

Organizational Morality

What about the poor people?

If there were one thing that separates the left from the right in this country and is the single most defining issue, it would be the proper way to help the poor people.

There are an infinite number of things that could be done with taxes. Most of these could be under the heading of “It’s a good cause.”

Where we need to focus is on the single one thing that Satan has deceived a large number of people on this planet. Organizational Morality. Also known as Socialism.

This world is fast becoming almost an entirely Socialist World. Let’s examine the concept behind why Socialism is morally wrong.

If I rob a bank, is it wrong? If two people rob a bank, is it any less wrong? If a whole neighborhood robs a bank is it wrong? If a whole town votes to have the police rob a bank and give the money to the poor, is it still wrong? Satan has convinced people that if the government does it, then it must be moral.

This is the greatest lie that people have bought into. Government steals from it's citizens, it allows gambling, but says if you run a gambling establishment, then it is wrong, it prints more money than it should, (counterfiting), and it is all dismissed as moral because the government is doing it. We are the government! Why is it voting takes away the morality of the act?

This is the crux of Socialism and it’s immoral premise that the welfare of the poor is more important than morality. They reason that it is more important to vote for the government to be a taker so it can then be a provider than to do what is morally right.

Satan has convinced almost the entire world that government enforced welfare is morally right. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is stealing, period.

Take (t³k) v. took (t‹k), tak·en (t³"k…n), tak·ing, takes. --tr. 1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: a. To capture physically; seize. b. To seize with authority; confiscate. - American Heritage Dictionary

There are a lot of good liberal people out there who sincerely believe in the welfare state. They have been deceived and fail to admit it or they admit that it is wrong but continue to say it is the only answer. Meaning it may be morally wrong, but it is the only solution.

This is the basis for our stand of “doing the right thing” even if it seems like the wrong thing at the time. This country has millions of good-hearted people on both the left and the right that will not let people starve if they suddenly were off the welfare rolls.

If each town/city would have the poor sign up on a list posted through out the town/city seeking assistance, I guarantee that all of the churches would take that list and make it a charitable project to help the poor.

Helping people by taking (forcing $100.00 out of your paycheck), and then sending that $100.00 to Washington, so they can send $10.00 back to the state to help the poor, is not near as good as the $100.00 that would be freely given by charitable people so that the entire $100.00 gets to the people who really need it, instead of in some pencil pushers pocket in D.C.

But most of all, there is no way possible for the left to say that Socialism is morally right and still not know that they are being decieved. Their conscience will tell them if they listen to it.

This is the main battle between the right and the left. Is Socialism morally wrong? Only those decived would think it is. We need to pray for them.


At 2:08 PM, Blogger Tex said...

Socialism fails to address how to elimate the poor as a social status. Reading scripture, (Matthew 26:11) we see the poor will always be there, no matter what we do alleviate the situation. Still, stealing from the rich does not alleviate the problem. The problem, much like everything else, isn't solved with money but with the condition of the heart. Socialism does not address this nor should it becuase then it is done without human intervention.

At 3:36 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Jesus didn't try to take the people out of the slums, he set about taking the slums out of the people.


At 6:09 PM, Blogger Bstermyster said...

Amen! - I can't really say much here because you have said it perfectly.

At 9:42 AM, Blogger PB said...

FAR--I wanted you to see this and have not been able to post on RC's blog, sorry for the disruption of the thread.

FAR--Damn thing lost my whole post.
Trying again.

I undestand your argument! You think people should not be forced via the government to give money to others. You believe people will give freely of themselves to help others and that is the way things should be. I agree on both accounts.

Problem is you are veiwing life through rose colored glasses and not from a realistic point of view.

When was the last time you bought a yearly bus pass for someone unable to drive? When did I for that matter?

V.A hospitals would dissappear if they simply relied on donations. Our military would shrivel and dissappear if it relied only on donations. Police and fire services would be non-existant if they were set up to be funded by use taxes only. I have not needed the service of the police or fire in 20 years; thank God!

I commend you and Lucy and RC and Sacto Dan and Mr. Sleep for all the church fostered community activities you are involved in. Really, I do! I think the church plays a VITAL role in caring for others in our nation and it is a role I am glad you play.

The reality is though, that it is not enough, and the government has a charge, and that charge is to protect the people of our country and promote the general welfare of the citizens within it. User taxes will not cover the bill. Donations will not cover the bill, and taxes are a necessary evil.

Finally--I still think you are arguing morality. I think, you think, the less fortunate have not earned their fair share and by helping them you are not teaching them a lesson. It may be true for some, but not for others. If you can honestly say that is not the case then I am sorry, I said it. But I got that feeling from your earlier comments.


At 1:44 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Said: "Our military would shrivel and dissappear if it relied only on donations. Police and fire services would be non-existant if they were set up to be funded by use taxes only. I have not needed the service of the police or fire in 20 years; thank God!"

These provisions are in the Constitution for the government to rightfully ask from it's citizens, and I completely agree. We have an obligation to do them.

But, the government does not have the right to require "forced charity."

It is stealing, plain and simple. If you say "It may be stealing, but it is the only answer." then I can respect that because you will at least have a brain that will allow conflicts to exist side by side and require a choice.

If you make that choice that some theft is necessary, then you have my respect. But if you say that stealing is not stealing if the voters authorize it, then you are fooling yourself and don't have my respect.

Fair enough?



Post a Comment

<< Home