Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shall Support the Welfare State

Pages: 1 2

As a candidate for the presidency, George W. Bush took heat for supposedly saying something like, “God wanted me to become president.” He never said that. But no matter. Here comes another yet another Bible-banging religious conservative “taking his marching orders from God.” Apparently, if you feel God endorses a particular path, God wants you to keep the news to yourself.

Religion, to many liberals, is a sign of weakness, a demonstration of the inability to reason for oneself. With the Bible telling him what to do, how to think, what to believe — why, such a person is downright scary. Recall Obama explaining how small-town Midwesterners deal with difficult economic times: “They get bitter,” as the then-presidential candidate put it. “They cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them … as a way to explain their frustrations.”

When, however, the left uses religion to justify expanding the Welfare State, well, invoking God becomes perfectly acceptable. During the last National Prayer Breakfast, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer praised how “movingly” Obama spoke about the way his religion informs his policies.

Take Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus. In a recent column, he uses religion to denounce those who oppose ObamaCare: “These critics seldom acknowledge other aspects of the law aimed at helping insure some of the roughly 50 million people in this country who now lack coverage. That’s an act of pure selfishness. … It’s also a display of heartlessness unbefitting a country that claims to define itself by love-thy-neighbor Judeo-Christian values.” (Emphasis added.)

Judeo-Christian values? In caring for the needy, scripture dictates that The State supplant individuals, community, houses of worship and other nonprofits in helping care for the needy?

Tell this to the Rev. Robert Sirico, of the free-market think tank Acton Institute. Whether arguing for government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or even Social Security, the first question to ask is a moral one: Does turning the business of compassion over to the state harm us as a society and damage us in ways proponents fail to consider?

In his 1999 piece “Morality and Social Security,” Sirico says Social Security’s biggest failing is that it creates a culture of dependency:

“Is it right that the young be taxed to enable the government to provide a generous retirement program for able-bodied older people? What are the social and moral implications of this idea?

“The very existence of Social Security has convinced tens of millions of people that government-mandated savings are utterly necessary for security in our later years.

Pages: 1 2

  • Andy

    Well done , the same arguments can be applied to my own religion – Buddhism.

  • southwood

    I really don't get why America is so against any kind of national health service except that you see it as a socialist practice. In Europe we have free health care and it is, overall , a good thing . Most people, for example, in the UK, value it highly and wish to retain it. This includes the conservative section of the population. Churchill said he was glad to see its introduction.

    • Ghostwriter

      From what I've heard of socialized medicine,it doesn't really work. It's a lot like the government tell you how to fix your car. They're not very good at it.

    • JTLiuzza

      First of all the health care is not "free." Things don't just fall out of the sky. Somebody has to pay for them.

      A private system free of government meddling can provide those services much more efficiently.

      And how many innovations in pharmacology and medical technology are coming from Europe or anywhere else where government runs health care?

      • southwood

        "First of all the health care is not "free." Things don't just fall out of the sky. Somebody has to pay for them."

        I know that..Don't be silly.

        "A private system free of government meddling can provide those services much more efficiently."

        Really ? Evidence, please. We hear of people being turned away from hospitals in the USA because they don't have insurance. That doesn't happen in the UK.

        "And how many innovations in pharmacology and medical technology are coming from Europe or anywhere else where government runs health care? "

        Well, then, have a look at this article :

    • RUI

      So in Europe we have "free" health care, do we? Newsflash: it isn't free! Health care is a comodity and somebody has to pay for it and It's being payed out of your taxes. Did you notice the high taxation you pay for no representation? Oh wait, maybe you don't pay taxes, that's why you think it's free.
      Pardon my language but f*** socialism, f*** comunism, f*** welfareism, f*** anybody who thinks those are better to spending your hard earned money the way you want, to buy the things you want and not being shoved the stuff you don't need and didn't ask for.
      My wife has been in the "free" dentists that the NHS provides here in the UK for about a year, for nothing. Every time she had an appointement, she went for a few hours of pain for no gain. And then, we decided to go private dentists and voilá… what a difference it made. Better service, less agony and a job well done. Socialized medicine fails.

  • Vintage

    Uncle Sam has replaced the family and has broken the intergenerational obligations. Obama is paterfamilias to all the unwed mothers, and so they feel obliged to the Father and would vote for him again. This is what happens when people create an idol. The men are turning their children over to the state.The MSM touts the virtues of singlehood, especially single motherhood. Connection to one's parents is now viewed as outdated. "Honor thy father and thy mother" no longer applies in our society.

    But the commandment specifically states that one should honor thy parents "that THY days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth THEE"–the emphasis is on the benefit to the children. I weep for them.

  • George

    Suppose the fund of compassion in a society is not enough to assist all people who need help. Then what would happen? State will and should then necessarily intervene, according to Christian values of loving the neighbor/poor/helpless.
    So, it is the Christian values which are to be blamed for forcing a state to become welfare-oriented!

    • JTLiuzza

      Wrong. It is the perversion of Christian values, even amongst bishops, that have produced the welfare state.

      Charity and care for the poor are demanded of us, me and you, personally, by the Lord. But a third party (government) confiscating money from one person in order to give it to another who hasn't earned it (in order to earn the receiver's political favor and support) is NOT Christian charity. It's the leftist perversion of it.

      In fact, that leftist version of "charity" is UN Christian in that only serves to enslave the recipient.

  • Ronald Johnston

    If we keep up with this welfare state, it will eventually die! All the welfare and social programs are going to disappear! We will all have to go back to work if we want to survive!!!!