1 - 2
In response to:

Socialism Isn't Charity

Ahenobarbus Wrote: Mar 21, 2014 3:44 PM
Every argument with a Progressive (the American derivative of Socialism) on the question of government enforced benevolence will boil down to one thing: their refusal to acknowledge that anyone wealthy is the legitimate owner of their wealth. They will always argue that the wealth rightly belongs to the workers and that the profits of the owner were not justly shared with the workers. With this they breezily justify every governmental theft of wealth. Redistribution is only economic justice in their minds. A smaller corollary is their belief that if something can be argued to be a "good thing", it is acceptable to give the government the power to do that thing. Socialism is an atheist creed. In order to make inroads into South and Central America, it was necessary to develop "Liberation Theology", a subversion of Catholicism with Marxist thought. A purely atheist Marxism would never have appealed to these highly Catholic populations otherwise. A similar but much subtler subversion has been going on in the mainstream Protestant denominations in the U.S. since at least the advent of the New Deal. Hence you will find views amongst the leadership of many mainline national Church organizations that are far more liberal than they are Christian and would be unrecognizable to their congregations if they were aware of them. I say more liberal than Christian because I cannot see anything in the New Testament in which appropriation of a neighbor's goods to fund one's own charitable acts is anything more than covetousness and theft. As a matter of government policy, the New Testament is intentionally silent. As a matter of personal responsibility as a Christian, it is abundantly clear. In this case, the Church's role should be the Christian position. The *government* and the voters may choose to indulge in envy and theft, but the *Church* should not be advocating for it. There is nothing Christian in forcing someone else to make a sacrifice on your behalf.
We get ourselves into unnecessary and irrelevant distractions when we start arguing the details over definitions and types of weapons. The real issue is imposing a ban by executive fiat. That is where the line should be drawn; it is unconstitutional and should not be countenanced.
1 - 2