Christians, Social Justice, and Liberal Dogma

by walterm on July 25, 2010

I have a number of Christian friends that I communicate with on Facebook who tend to vote Democratic, and strongly favor Obama’s brand of “social justice” (which is not what they think it is, as discussed in a previous post). Personally, I don’t think as Christians that they have particularly strong arguments for voting Democratic, but generally, it has something to do with social justice or helping the poor, as if the Democratic party somehow has a lock on compassion. I have demonstrated in past blogs that when it comes to giving, conservatives do so far more than liberals because they feel it is their moral duty based on a Judeo-Christian ethic, while liberals by and large feel it is the job of the federal government to be generous, even though this generosity is not their own but takes away from individuals being generous on their own. Last week we learned that John Kerry, the senator from Massachusetts who never met a tax hike he didn’t like, docked his new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to a state drowning in red ink (ironically, part of this debt was brought on by a government run state healthcare system that serves as a model for the federal healthcare bill Kerry voted for this year).

Now is there anything wrong with what Kerry has done? Actually, there is nothing wrong with him trying to save money (even at the expense of his own state), and I believe any conservative would agree with me on that. What’s wrong is that he always wants to raise everyone else’s taxes to pay for his government programs, most of whom can’t afford a $15,000 Duffy, let alone a $7 million yacht.  What’s worse is that with the Heinz fortune, Kerry can afford to pay the additional $500,000 in taxes in his home state and it wouldn’t put the slightest dent in his lifestyle. When he waxes philosophical about children going hungry, people living in the streets, or [insert favorite sob story here for raising taxes], he apparently doesn’t think a wit about those folks who want their healthcare now in the state of Massachusetts (just like they want their MTV). One can buy plenty of meals, beds, and healthcare with that chunk of change. But I do digress a bit with this anecdote about Kerry. My point is that liberals in general are “do as I say,” but not “do as I do” types, and they’re able to get away with it because their appeal is to the emotions, and not the intellect. And that is what disappoints me about my liberal Christian friends on Facebook. Even though they are highly intelligent professionals, they somehow can’t seem to understand that there is more to solving a problem than simply paying more taxes, particularly for things that are better the function of the church, private charities, and the markets.

An important distinction for my liberal Christian friends to understand is that when government gets into the business of solving problems that people can solve for themselves, it becomes coercive, not voluntary, and makes a statement about society and Christianity itself. Government is steadily encroaching into every aspect of American life, and too many Christians seem to be on board with this notion because they see a need they feel the government can fill. But have they stopped to think that their acquiescence to government is indeed a reflection on the church, and how it is not meeting the needs of the community to such a degree that the federal government has to come in and take over the duties that were once largely its local purview? It appears to me that liberal Christians are now complicit in this takeover, with some even clamoring for the government to usurp rule of law to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants (as evidenced by a recent Huffington Post article by Jim Wallis, considered a “Christian leader for social change,” useful to liberals only when convenient to not separate church from state). Additionally, some Christians now look askance at free markets because of the recent financial meltdown, having forgotten the freedom and prosperity free markets and the industrial revolution have brought to this country over the past century. Our prosperity has never come from government, yet as we concentrate ever more power into the hands of a few based on their ability to tug at our heart strings, we will find that our problems will still go largely unsolved, and we will have lost hard won freedoms in the process.

Liberal dogma is not about solving problems, but about looking for problems to exploit. Under the auspices of “helping people,” liberal dogma actually looks to make those people it helps more dependent. And once it has them dependent, it looks to coerce more and more from those who are not dependent to appease the dependent. Thus, we have a cycle of dependence that never leads to independence, because if the dependent were to become less so, then there would be less need for liberals and their “solutions.” And here we will bring in John Kerry again, God love him (to use a Joe Biden-ism). With all of his wealth, what has John Kerry sacrificed of his fortune to help the poor himself? Well the answer is very little compared to what he has. You see, he has a lifestyle to which he has become accustomed, and he is hardly going to pour out his life to the less fortunate because he is too busy enjoying life (and telling you how to live yours). Again, I see no problem with this because he has a right to live his life as he chooses. The problem is he and his ilk want to take more from you and me so they don’t have to sacrifice. There is much talk of “shared sacrifice” from people who sacrifice nothing, yet gain much politically when they take from you. There is no end to their political calculations. And therein lies the hypocrisy of liberal dogma to which Christians for social change appear to be so blinded. In my next post, I will discuss a more principled approach and how it compares to liberal dogma.

Share

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: