This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge. Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.
The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor. b) Government welfare programs help the poor. Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.
It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun. b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree. Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree. The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.
The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor. Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves. There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.
For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.
Now, I could argue this two different ways. I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty. I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created. I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”
But that’s been done at length. What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM. And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.
The problem is that it is simply false.
St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends? But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived. And what did he say about “welfare”??? Try this:
For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10
I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws. Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state. And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I've been pointing this out since Obama took office.
How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary's job - and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor's salary - is anything other than morally depraved? What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are "suckers" as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???
How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???
How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???
But let's leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.
We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:
and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also. “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”
So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king. [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us… 1 Samuel 8:5-19
Did God want gargantuan human government? The Bible is clear: NO. Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems. Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do. And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.” And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).
A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:
Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.
Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.
Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.
And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.
Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe? Let’s let Jesus speak:
Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22
Okay, so you can give to Obama. OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD. BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.
What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor - IS giving to God. God is the State and the State is God. And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor. WRONG. JUST ASK JESUS. Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.
Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4
Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman? No. Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.? No. Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.
In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state. In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers. The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer. If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.” If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel. In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion. Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me. But of course they DON’T, do they? They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like. They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like. And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.
You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor? You’re darned right we should care for the poor. Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state? Absolutely NOT.
Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:
13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.
15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”
16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.
18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21
Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod. We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.” He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.” YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.
What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?
Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13
For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state. Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.
Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s. And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx??? The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus. I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:
Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism. In the words of Karl Marx:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.
What did Karl Marx mean by this?
Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today. And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves. But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage. Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system. Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage. The only “real” reality is economic reality. And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force. Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.
The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.” Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God. And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting. “Hey, look at those damn rich people! They’ve got everything! Let’s take their stuff!” Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.
God said, “Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal.” And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead, “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”
So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.
The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM. They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government. Okay, fine. But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.
Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.
Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:
In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.
Both Obama and his wife, Michelle, declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.
Socialism is love of other people’s money. And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”
“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”
In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.
But maybe that’s just an anomaly. Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):
Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.
“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Oops. I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.
Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity. John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity. Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.
The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals. At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.
It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.
Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people. And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor. As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it. Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act” (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.
ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was. All it was ever about was more power for the State God. And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.
Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING. Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.
The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years. And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here - they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.
The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.
Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.
In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read "Democrat"] gain.
People who refuse to work should NOT eat. We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole. At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.
As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.” People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects. The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance. Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.
There is also the military. People who can serve should serve. We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.
And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.
Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years. People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America. But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.
Human beings were created to work. We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually. People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.