Home » abortion, Blog, General » Is Calling a Person a Socialist just Name Calling? Is it Christian to ‘Spread the Wealth’?

Is Calling a Person a Socialist just Name Calling? Is it Christian to ‘Spread the Wealth’?

A friend of mine made a comment today that I thought hit the nail on the head.  In response to Obama’s statement recently, that [paraphrase], “My opponents have called me every name in the book, and now they are calling me a Socialist.  They recently found out that as a kindergartener I shared my toys, and as a child I tore apart my peanut butter sandwiches and gave them to my friend, and they call me a redistributioner.  MY Bible says that we are supposed to look after others.  I am my brother’s keeper.  I am my sister’s keeper.”

She said:

“spreading my own wealth, yes… taking others’ wealth and spreading it… resoundingly NO”

There is a large group of Americans who believe that religious motives are not permitted expression in the public domain.  These secular humanists believe that you must have a secular reason for whatever you do within the public domain or else it is a violation of church and state.    I don’t suppose that any of these secular humanists- 95% of whom will be voting for Obama- object to Obama’s ‘motives’ as expressed above.

Obama’s sentiment really expresses the gross error of most Christians who vote Democratic.  Their motives are sincere enough.  They really want to help people.  They look at the New Testament and see calls for compassion to the poor and weak.  They fail to note that this call is for individuals- there is no justification given for the taking of resources from unwilling parties to give to others.  Not in Jesus’ name… not in anyone’s name.

It is unfortunate that this sincere compassion for the poor and weak does not often extend itself to the poorest and weakest among us- the unborn.  But there it is, it doesn’t.

There is, in fact, both secular and religious reasons to be concerned about people who wish to use the State to be ‘brother’s keeper.’  Personally, reading Obama’s statement that he is ‘his brother’s keeper’ in this context put chills down my spine.  He aims to be the epitome of ‘Big Brother.’  We need not go to the book 1984 to see the dangers when ‘Big Brother’ to see what abuses can arise.  Using the government to ‘help’ people means that a select few within the government will have to decide who needs help and what kind of ‘help’ is necessary.

Here we must speak about Obama’s long term association with Bill Ayers and other individuals.  (I read a blog entry recently that pointed out that according to an FBI manager, Obama wouldn’t pass the FBI’s background check.  Yipes!)  In this National Review Article, the hypocrisy of the LA Times refusing to publish the video of a glowing toast that Barack Obama gave to a certain Rashid Khalidi a few years back.  Author Andrew McCarthy points out that the original article failed to note that Bill Ayers and his wife was there and that Khalidi and Ayers are good friends.

We are talking about a man with some very unnerving associations vying for the position of ‘Big Brother,’ “Brother’s Keeper in Chief.”  But how bad could it be?

Remember, someone has to decide.  If it is Barack, we are reasonable to wonder what kinds of principles undergird those decisions.  Who/what has influenced him?  20 years in a ‘Black Liberation’ church attacking America in every other breath?  Years as Ayer’s friend?  A friend of a ‘Death to Israel’ former PLO member now (of course) teaching in an American University?  Are we not permitted to draw reasonable inferences from these associations?  If the LA Times refuses to publish a video, if the Hawaii governor refuses to release Obama’s ‘Vault’ birth certificate, if Kenya (who ought have no records in the first place) seals Obama’s records, isn’t it reasonable to infer the worst?

Or, perhaps we just don’t understand the nature of these affiliations.  I admit that I didn’t understand the Bill Ayer’s thing until recently.  I didn’t know much about the Weather Underground, unlike those hoary ancients who know everything.  I didn’t understand until this Youtube Video of a man who had infiltrated the Weathermen:

[Summary:  Weather Underground aims to murder the 25 million capitalists that could not be ‘re-educated’ if the WU managed to take over the government.]

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Now, just think:  With Obama, the founder of the organization described in the video above is just one step away.  Are we really so certain that the Weather Underground is dismantled?  Are we really so sure that in just a couple of days, they may have obtained the control they’ve sought all along?

Even if that is an over-statement, realize that the ‘someone must decide’ issue still remains.  The Weather Underground was acting ‘for the good of society.’  In their minds, they were ‘helping’ people.  Anyone who knows an ounce of history should always be nervous about the government ‘helping’ people- even if Obama was as pure as the wind driven snow.  Not even if it was Billy Graham or Dobson.  It is always dangerous and when done always requires extremely robust checks and balances.

Yes, secular humanists prefer us all to have merely secular motives, and Christians on the left think that the government is a useful tool for advancing Christian charity.  But it was atheists who thought they were doing the ‘good of the people’ and ‘helping’ as they slaughtered millions upon millions… and it was Christians who were silent, or complicit.  Why do we think we can out-smart history?  Why do we think there can never be a next time?

With Barack Obama, you are only a heart beat away from a whole host of associations with people whose ideology has been shown to be downright dangerous.  We are being asked to overlook this.  Any time a person believes it is right to take from someone else to give to another, whether in the name of compassion or not, someone must decide what to take, and why, and how.  Barack Obama wants to be that ‘someone.’

But hey, perhaps this is all an over-reaction.  Maybe he distinguishes himself from Ayer’s views on the one critical point that Ayers would have murdered 25 million people while Obama thinks that its just best to keep them in re-education camps.  *shrug*  This is the kind of thing we’d only know after it is too late.  But don’t blame me… I voted for the other guy.

Share

2 Responses to Is Calling a Person a Socialist just Name Calling? Is it Christian to ‘Spread the Wealth’?

  1. In calling someone a socialist, you should really know what the word “socialist” means first. Consider studying Marx.

    Alaska is a “socialist” state because its citizens own part of its industrial production (Alaska Permanent Fund).
    Do you call every Alaskan a socialist? They qualify under the dictionary’s definition far more than “Socialist Barack Obama” does. But even the dictionary definition of socialist is not enough to understand what exactly it means. Are you aware that Marx actually endorsed capitalism, as he thought it was inevitable, but that ultimately as labor became ever more competitive and workers became undercut (ever gotten angry at an immigrant before?) this would sew unrest among the population. He also predicted that machines would take the place of most manual labor, and this would cause further discontent. Sound familiar? Do you agree? You must be a socialist, certainly.

    Sweden is “socialist” in many ways, but they are most definitely a capitalist country, and so are the likes of China and South Korea. People equate “socialism” with the destruction of religion, when many of Christianity’s greatest heroes called themselves “socialist” and were murdered or tortured for being either or both.

    I would also highly recommend you detach yourself from the views expressed on television.

  2. *yawn*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*