With his long-time, deep-seated liberal worldview, Wallis
comes to this conclusion because the conservatives with whom he disagrees “don't
believe in government per se. They want to destroy the House [of
Representatives] and shut it down. That's not biblical.” He continues, “Secondly,
because government has a biblical responsibility to care for the poor, they're
against poor people. They get hostile to the poor because they are hostile to
government. That's also wrong. It's unbiblical.”
In addition to being a complete lie (there are at least
three in Mr. Wallis’ statement—is lying “unbiblical?”), it is a worn-out, but
reliable, tactic of liberals to attack conservatives as uncaring, cold-hearted,
uncompassionate, selfish brutes whenever the idea of shrinking government is
broached. But “unbiblical?” Please. (As my website has declared for years, “It
is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.)
One really has to be committed to a Big Government worldview
to use Scripture to try to shame conservatives. The GOP presidential debate of
September 2011 provides a great example of Democrats, aided by their allies in
the Mainstream Media, using this line of attack.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer presented Ron Paul and other republicans
with a hypothetical: A 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health
insurance suddenly finds himself in need of six months of intensive
care—Blitzer wanted to know what the “compassionate conservative” response
would be.
Congressman Paul stated, “That’s what freedom is all about —
taking your own risks.” Thrilling liberals everywhere, Blitzer pressed the
matter and asked whether “society should just let him die.” The New York Times’
Paul Krugman piously concluded that, “The incident highlighted something that I
don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point,
American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.”
Asking “Where
Are the Compassionate Conservatives,” Washington Post columnist, Eugene
Robinson, noted that Blitzer next turned to Michele Bachmann, “whose popularity
with evangelical Christian voters stems, at least in part, from her own
professed born-again faith. Asked what she would do about the man in the coma,
Bachmann ignored the question and launched into a canned explanation of why she
wants to repeal President Obama's Affordable Care Act.”
Robinson then declared that, “According to the Gospel of
Matthew, Jesus told the Pharisees that God commands us to ‘love thy neighbor as
thyself.’ There is no asterisk making this obligation null and void if circumstances
require its fulfillment via government.”
The book of Luke records that, when Jesus is asked by “an
expert in the Law” what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus asks him what
the Law requires. The man answers correctly: “‘Love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your
mind,’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Sounding like a liberal pundit or politician, or as
Scripture puts it, “attempting to justify himself,” the man smugly asked Jesus,
“who is my neighbor?” That is when Jesus launches into the Good Samaritan
parable. Of course, the parable reveals that, as a true act of love, a
Samaritan—whom the Jews of Jesus’ day generally despised—took care of an
injured Jew on his own time and with his own resources. (Not quite the picture
of Obamacare that today’s liberals would have us believe.)
Liberals love to quote Scripture when they think it might
help them further their Big Government social agenda. They also love to talk
about compassion and morality but would prefer it if you left Scripture out of
it. Perhaps if more liberals were for posting the Ten Commandments in every
public school and post office in the U.S.
Perhaps if more liberals were willing to allow their
morality and compassion to move them to protect the most defenseless among
us—the unborn—more Americans would take them seriously when they talk in terms
of “moral visions,” “compassion,” or “caring for the poor.”
Why would any sincere Christian want to put caring for the
poor, or any other charitable act for that matter, in the hands of a godless
secular government (the type of government that, of course, most of today’s
liberals crave)? Is it Christ-like to support legislation that promotes
servitude, dependence, and massively grows government—to the tune of trillions
of dollars—all the while piling up more and more debt?
The bottom line here is that most liberals, at least those
who end up getting elected, do not allow Christian morality to guide their
politics. (Is that not the song-and-dance we get from Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden,
et al when it comes to abortion?) Instead, bowing at the altar of Big
Government, they simply align their politics with whatever morality will get
them elected or re-elected. (See the same-sex marriage debate.)
Good government should be rooted in Christian morality. (All
law is rooted in some morality.) As I’ve said recently, good government must
recognize what it means truly to come to the aid of those in need; what it
takes truly to change bad behavior—something that “gets to the heart” of
individuals—and, at best, partner with such efforts, or at least, do nothing to
hinder them. Most importantly, good government should never enact laws that are
contradictory to the laws of God. As Blackstone taught us, “[The] laws laid
down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil…This law of nature
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It
is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
human laws are of any validity if contrary to this…”
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
