Moral to cut taxes

Voluntarily giving: if we vote for pols who we know will support the safety net then we are voluntarily supporting the safety net.

I like being able to sleep at night knowing my government, like other civilized societies, help stop the poor and needy from dying. I guess this author hopes the churches would take this on. Does he not know the churches are hit terribly hard themselves during economic hard times? I think he simply doesn’t care about the poor.

Not my idea of Christy.

jprfrog:
Can someone here explain to me why this may not be a correct understanding?

------------------------------------

Jesus was starting a new religion and needed followers. The lowest fruit were the poor who were unhappy with their lot in life. They believed that the rich got that way due to extreme corruption (with good reason most likely). Then Jesus comes along and tells them that they're going to live forever and the rich guys will perish. Who wouldn't want to hear that?

The issue today is that (most of) the rich didn't get that way due to corruption. They worked damn hard and made wise choices. The poor need to be given opportunities to succeed with education and loans, but then it's up to them to succeed.

Since the Bible says that it is very difficult for a rich man to get into Heaven, and I the poor shall inherit the Earth (I think he means the World, i. e. the Universe...a small glitch in translation) can't we see that taking from the poor to give to the rich is actually the most moral course? One who fails to amass wealth here in this Vale of Tears in exchange for eternal life is not suffering injustice, but executing a terrific investment strategy.

Conversely, the rich who are soaking the poor are heroes... they are risking their immortal souls to help their poorer brethren save theirs. They should not only get credit in Heaven for that, they should be praised to the skies here on Earth.

Can someone here explain to me why this may not be a correct understanding?

It seems some people want to retain as much worldly possessions as possible until the very end and then claim to have the right to enter heaven because of religious belief.

It does seem comical - in the eyes of a non-Christian.

Jordan - You know nothing of Jesus and would reject him if he were here today. You would spit at him calling him a liberal. You would slander him for proposing redistribution of wealth, you would castigate him for daring to suggest a wealthy man will most likely not enter heaven and you would seek congress to investigate and prosecute him for "unAmerican" activities.

Anyone listening to you jeopardizes their soul.

What's really immoral is to implement your religious views, disguised as benevolent public policy, in a country founded on the principle of avoiding that exact type of behavior.
The income tax wasn't even constitutional until the beginning of the 20th century. Now it's immoral to have a less progressive income tax than we could?

Sekulow may be correct that "forced charity" is not a moral act by the one being compelled, but neither is it an immoral act by a democratically-elected government to compel charity through democratically-enacted law.

If Sekulow really believes that "the United States is a Christian nation" (http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Jordan_Sekulow/2010/10/christian_faith_guides_america.html), one would think he would whole-heartedly support it acting like one.

Jordan Sekulow wrote:

“The Bible, specifically the New Testament, does not implore mankind to personally fund a social welfare state. When the government takes tax dollars and redistributes wealth, the citizens who provided that money are not voluntarily assisting those in need and thus not participating in a true act of charity.”

Sekulow could also write:

The Bible, specifically the New Testament, does not implore mankind to personally fund the military industry, the big pharmaceutical, the agriculture and oil subsidies, the financial barons, etc. welfare state. When the government takes tax dollars and redistributes wealth upward to those already obscenely rich, the citizens who provided that money, that is the poor and the middle class, are not voluntarily assisting those in need (that is the obscenely rich)and thus not participating in a true act of reverse charity.

But don't worry too much, nobody knows for sure who were most of the writers of the hundreds of bible versions sold in the market, nor the bible has been proved to be the word of mysterious entities outside the universe we know today.

"Taxes are justifiable to the extent necessary for government to function."

And thus, you now must define the function of government.

Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest." ~Cardinal Roger Mahony

Forced charity is a bad thing, eh? I was forced to show some charity to the billionaires by extending their tax cut.

Is that a bad thing?

Pray for this guy. He desperately needs it.

"Forced charity is not moral."

What is charity, Jordan? Public Schools? Free use of roadways? Police protection? Ambulances? Fire brigades? Social Security? Is the internet you published this on forced charity? The government built it, you know. Are the jets you fly on forced charity? Their development was publicly funded. Is the computer you wrote this on forced charity? Nasa funded the first integrated circuits, you know. Is all that support for American companies forced pubic charity? Were the land grants that financed the rail roads forced charity?

Letting billionaires not pay their fair share of monies they accumulated because they bought and paid for the votes in Congress, now that is forced charity, my friend. That is forced charity.

Bill Gates was able to take over the PC industry only after massive public funding of hardware and software technologies created it. At least he has the good grace to return much of the money to the society from which he accumulated it. Of course he is keeping a few billions, which is just fine. That model is a better one than the borrowing for billionaires' Many of today's billionaires have been propped up and bailed out from the 12 trillion dollars Reagan, Bush, and Bush borrowed against the future of the middle class. Wall Street just gave itself 140 billion dollars in bonuses from the tax payer bailouts. Now that is forced charity, Jordan.

Wait a minute. You advocate that a forced contribution is not a moral choice. However, you don't have any problem advocating for a tax deduction for a contribution, which is a FORCED subsidy by the US Treasury, and all other taxpayers, for the contribution that this person makes....and that FORCED contribution is just peachy with you. Bah!

It's a good thing Joseph didn't know that governments aren't responsible for social welfare when he went to Egypt to buy corn. All of Christianity would have been starved before it began otherwise.

The argument that in a society vastly more complex than 2000 years ago, that all social welfare must come only from private contributions is as childish as it is greedily Dickensonian.

Freedom from disease and freedom from starvation are "social goods" from which we all benefit. Yet the author would prefer simply to freeload.

Borrowing for Billionaires

Trickle down tax cuts, the name of the game
The rich need more money so they always complain

No healthcare for babies ‘cause Obamacare’s lame
The sick little children don’t need that, they explain

What the poor really need is a good dose of pain
‘Cause unemployment payments give ‘em way too much gain

Borrowing for billionaires now that’s what we need
It says so right here in talk radio’s O so true screeds.

Who says that the hungry are the ones who need a break?
Rush Limbaugh got it so right saying “Let them eat cake!”

Wvanpup:
“generally willing to do this for roads, schools, etc. for ‘the greater good’ but it is what it is." If we collect taxes and use them for the general good that is not coveting”
No, this relates to things we are generally/more popularly inclined to go along with without screaming theft! or Covet!, vs. things we are more polarized about, say funding for Planned Parenthood and some welfare programs. My point was an attempt to say that we don’t really seem to mind as much ‘coveting’ things we really like, or that are very popular to want, but there is indeed an argument that would maintain that it is still coveting, we just don’t get all worked up about it.
I for one do not consider ‘coveting’, the desire itself, as a sin, since I don’t subscribe to the biblical notion of sin to begin with.

“If collection of taxes is coveting, why would Jesus say "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), in other words, pay your taxes? Would Jesus really tell people it is okay to disregard one of the ten commandments?”

If you are asking me to justify if or why JC did or said something, you’re asking the wrong guy. As an atheist I don’t need/am not qualified to rationalize/legitimize his alleged words. (He also said it was okay to dine with prostitutes, something Jewish laws were pretty strict about.)

IS IT MORAL TO HAVE A TAX EXEMPT LAW LET ALONE WHEN SOME GROUPS THAT HAVE FILE TAX EXEMPT THAT HAVE NOT COMPLYED WITH THE TAX EXEMPT LAW'S RULES?

Well, I suppose we should get government out of schools because asking rich people to pay for schooling for everybody's children, when they can just pay for private education for their own kids, that is a forced charity. Rich people can afford to get clean water, so why should they pay taxes for other people to get clean water? Why should there be any public water or sewer systems, public parks, building roads or bridges (unless necessary for public safety), public dams, social security/medicare?

Evidently, we can't make a choice as a society about pooling public resources for delivering services to the public (except defense and the courts)because that would be forced charity. Or, as many call it, socialism. Is there much that we are taxed for at the state level that is not forced charity?

What, besides making laws to protect freedom and national defense against invasion from other countries, can government do that is not forced charity or, as some people call it, socialism? Shoot, that ark facsimile they want to build in Kentucky that will get all the tax breaks, that is socialism, too. And if you really think about it, tax breaks for religious organizations is a form of forced charity, at least for those who have no religious inclinations.

Is that what taxes are, then: forced charity?

Bottom line is----we currently have a Congress and President who want to REWARD those who would break our LAWS by entering this nation illegally and PUNISH hard working citizens for being successful (obtaining the American Dream).

Let's not conflate religion and morality. I don't think that you can say that because something can be supported by Bible passages that its "moral." If that were the case, then wife-beating and murder could also be called moral. Almost any proposition can be supported by something in the Bible.

Also, it hardly needs to be noted that being religious does not equate to being moral. Many moral people don't follow any particular religion and many religious people are immoral.

So, while you can say that (very arguably), tax cuts are in line with christian principles, it is a HUGE leap to say that tax cuts are "moral." Shouldn't the government as an entity act "morally"? And wouldn't that mean doing things within the government's limited power to care for the needy?

«English Standard Version (©2001)
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.»

«Posted by: vze4k4bh | December 15, 2010 11:46 AM »

O VZE4k4bh, that was then, this is now, already the Zionists are claiming their temple where Dome of the Rock sits. Temple, next thing you know, Zionists will build again their temple, they will offer animal sacrifices again. «House of prayer for all peoples» says the prophet, all peoples will come to Al-Quds, pray, bring animal sacrifices, ¿where will they get the animals? Pilgrims from New Zealand, ¿will they bring sheep with them on the airplane, will TSA let sheep through the body scanners, will lambs and ewes have to be patted down? Of course not! Pilgrims from Texas, will they bring bulls, longhorn bulls to sacrifice? Of course not!

Pilgrims, they will have to buy sacrificial animals in Al-Quds, on Haram al-Sharif (what Zionists call «temple mount».) Temple priests, they have animals, clean animals, animals with no disqualifying blemish, animals that can be used for sacrifice, if poor man cannot afford animal, priests have clean birds, doves, pigeons, birds to sell to pilgrims. Temple priests, they do not accept New Zealand dollars or Texas dollars or British pounds or European euros, they do not even accept Zionist «new shekels», priests accept only silver temple shekels, ¿where will pilgrims get silver temple shekels to buy animals or birds from temple priests? Huh??

Side chambers, the new temple will have side chambers like the old temple had, there will be branches of Zionist banks, «Israel Discount Bank», «Bank Leumi», «Israel Savings Bank», «Bank Hapoalim», tellers at these bank branches, they will be happy to take pilgrims' dollars, pounds, euros, exchange them for silver temple shekels. ATMs, there will also be ATMs, ATMs in temple side chambers to accept American Express, Diner's Club, Visa, Master Card, ATM will dispense silver temple shekels, don't go anywhere in temple without them.

Money-changers, pigeon-sellers, the Zionists are going to bring the money-changers back into the temple, Prophet Issa («Jesus»), he drove them out, Zionists are going to bring them back, ¿what will Christian crusader Bible-thumpers say when Zionists bring the money-changers back into the temple? Huh??

So somehow it's not immoral to call oneself a "Human Rights Attorney" (when one's idea of "Human Rights" is only for white Huckabees) that is in clear violation of one's own Ninth Commandment?

Gladerunner: "So yes, by voting to take other people’s money we are in fact beyond the conventional definition of ‘coveting’ since to covet merely means ‘to desire’. We’re doing more than just wanting our neighbors wife and ass, we’re actually taking them. We’re generally willing to do this for roads, schools, etc. for ‘the greater good’ but it is what it is. Don’t kid yourself, we’re really only haggling over the price.

You want something (i.e. health insurance), you want to force someone else to pay for it, yup.. how is that NOT coveting?"

If you want to say that ALL taxation is coveting, and the purpose for which the taxes are collected is simply haggeling, at least you are being consistent. But what, then, to make of your statement that we’re "generally willing to do this for roads, schools, etc. for ‘the greater good’ but it is what it is." If we collect taxes and use them for the general good that is not coveting, but if we use them for something that is not the general good it is coveting? Is the commandmant that nuanced that it depends on an undefined "general good"?

If collection of taxes is coveting, why would Jesus say "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), in other words, pay your taxes? Would Jesus really tell people it is okay to disregard one of the ten commandments?

Gabrielle: "taxation for legit purposes of government is not theft or coveting." Where does the Bible say taxing my neighbor's possessions is not coveting when it is for a legitimate purpose but is coveting when it is not for a legitimate purpose? Somewhat more specifically, where does the Bible say that Government should NOT assist those in need? Saying you should be charitable, which the Bible does say, does NOT mean that Government has no role in "charity" (which itself is kind of hard to define -- is it charity for the government to provide shelter to someone who lost a job and therefore lost a house? What about providing shelter to someone whose house was destroyed by a hurricane or earthquake, is that prohibited by the Bible as well?). BTW, I always thought coveting referred to wanting my neighbor's possessions for myself rather than as taxes WHICH I ALSO PAY, but you don't seem to be interested in defining what coveting actually means.

Your restaurant analogy is completely false, even in your own words. You said "neither one has the right to take from you what you did not agree to let them have." You do understand, don't you, that we have a representative democracy, where we the people choose representatives to act on our behalf? The taxes which our representatives have agreed to are therefore taxes which we have agreed to. YOU may not agree with the purpose for which the taxes are used, but that does not make it theft any more than it is theft if I do not agree with the use of taxes to fight two wars, or to subsidize farmers, or to build a bridge to an island in Alaska.

Of course it is moral to cut taxes when those taxes are being used immorally, ineficiently, wastefully, illegaly, or counter to the country's interest. It is not only moral, it is imperative.

I find Mr. Sekulow's articles well-written and thoughtful. This one seemed simplistic. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I lost interest in the Republicratic system long ago. But interpretations of Christianity as applied to public policy does interest me. What about Acts 2 -- they lived together and held all things in common? Is that relevant here? Isn't the percentage of money that Americans give something like 1% of their income, after taking out money given to their churches? We live in a fantastically wealthy and materialistic culture. I'd say it's Mammon 68, God 42 at the half.

Wvanpup:

“To those who have equated taxation to being in conflict with the biblical commandment against coveting your neighbors possessions, wouldn't that apply to ANY taxation, whether for charity, defense, police, education, etc.?”

Yes it would.

It’s like the old joke:

He: “Howdy ma’am, would you have ‘relations’ with a stranger for $1,000,000”
She: “Uh, I dunno, maybe.”
He: “How about $10 then?”
She: “What kind of woman do you think I am?!!”
He: “Well we’ve pretty much established WHAT you are, we’re just haggling over the price.”

So yes, by voting to take other people’s money we are in fact beyond the conventional definition of ‘coveting’ since to covet merely means ‘to desire’. We’re doing more than just wanting our neighbors wife and ass, we’re actually taking them. We’re generally willing to do this for roads, schools, etc. for ‘the greater good’ but it is what it is. Don’t kid yourself, we’re really only haggling over the price.

You want something (i.e. health insurance), you want to force someone else to pay for it, yup.. how is that NOT coveting?

Do you really believe that Jesus would have cared about the particulars about how the poor got their meals? Whether those meals were provided by the state vs. provided by a mosque or synagogue or church? Maybe he would, and perhaps we can look at religious philosophy to provide some guidance in this area. Eg. it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish - suggesting that job training programs, etc are more valuable than voluntary giving. Or that voluntary giving may be better than coerced giving... yet in the end, would Jesus say that he would prefer the homeless to live without shelter and food because the act was coerced? I doubt it. I think he would have been more concerned that the hungry were fed, and the homeless sheltered, and the naked clothed.

Further, there is extremely little (or no) evidence that suggests that lowering tax rates increases giving rates. So - this isn't an either / or question.

Wvanpup - taxation for legit purposes of government is not theft or coveting. Taxation for purposes of government not allowed by the societal contract which founded the government constitute theft/coveting.

If you go into a restaurant, and they charge you for your meal, that is legit. If they add a $20 surcharge to give to charity, that is not legit. Even if their intentions are good, they do not have the right to take an extra $20 from you. Whether it is a restaurant or the government, neither one has the right to take from you what you did not agree to let them have.

When we created the government, we created a document listing what the government could and could not do. When the government violates that contract, taxation becomes theft, and the government becomes a tyranny.

WRFarm1 - actually, your taxes are lower because of the charitable efforts that religions provide for our society without seeking reimbursement from the government. The amount of money put into charitable efforts by churches far surpasses the amount of taxes they would owe on their property.

The only way you think that religions don't pay their fair share is if you think that the government should not help the less fortunate, and thus discredit all the money religions spend on helping the less fortunate.

So do you mean to imply that atheists like you do not believe that the government should help the less fortunate, or reward with tax-exempt status those who operate non-profit ventures to help the less fortunate?

I agree that paying taxes that are then used to help the poor is not charity. However, that does not make it immoral.

My belief is that we, as a society, have an obligation to help those who need it. This is not an individual, religious obligation to give charity, it is a societal obligation which society accomplishes through collection of taxes and the provision of goods and services to the poor and needy. My charity comes through a recognition that society has failed to live up to this obligation.

There is no quoted Bible passage inconsistent with this belief. There are no quoted passages which say that the only way to help is through charity. There are no quoted passages which say that it is immoral for a government to assist those who need it.

To those who have equated taxation to being in conflict with the biblical commandment against coveting your neighbors possessions, wouldn't that apply to ANY taxation, whether for charity, defense, police, education, etc.? It is all my desire to take my neighbor's possessions, and I don't see how the purpose for the taking changes the fact that it is coveting.

Finally, with the respect to whether "forced charity" (the use of taxes to provide what the author considers charity) is moral (the author says it is not), I simply ask: Which society is more moral, the one that provides for the needs of its citizens through taxation or the one that allows citizens to suffer because those who can afford to provide charity do not give enough to help all who need it?

Posted by: colonelpanic | December 14,
There are entire levels of hell dedicated to welcome this fellow once he's finished in this world.
We'll go for greed and gluttony for starters.
The entire Republican conservative faith seems driven by the seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.
Pretty much describes the conservative movement, doesn't it?
==========================================
Why do envy and lust come to mind when reading this?

No the government is not for charity, why are we sill supporting the illegals here? This isn't even charity to the American Citizen, it's to people who continue to break our laws by being here. The Dems are the ones who give it away. We have familes on welfare generation after generation and the dems like it that way because they vote for them no matter what, just look at Rangel and Reid. These people will continue to vote for the free hand outs, they don't want to work, never did and never will. This country was built on the back of hard working immigrants who came here legally, couldn't speak a word of English, but they did it. Stop with the religion unless your going to use it across the board with everything in our lives. I do have a question, who stopped the schools from saying the Pledge of Alligence every morning...the Illegals!

Anyone who has read much of Paul's appeal to the early Christian Churches to support his offering in support of the Jerusalem church (which the above quote is an example of) will be struck by the fact that he borderline blackmails his readers into giving with the strength of his appeal. Sort of the God will bless if you do and God will get you if you don't appeal for "voluntary" giving. The early Christian church soon become known as the welfare department of the Roman empire. After Christianity became the official religion of Rome, the state took over most of that duty.

Monty Keeling

How about we cut my taxes by eliminating the tax exemptions of religious groups at the federal, state and local levels. Why should ALL my (income, sales and property)taxes be higher because religious groups don't pay their fair share??? How about making the first step to tax reform be eliminating my INVOLUNTARY subsidy to religion? I think that would be a good start toward tax fairness...

David6:
“Stealing? Are you another one of the sociopaths on the right who alleges that collecting taxes is stealing?”
Though I try to avoid the distraction of using the word ‘stealing’ I understand and agree with the principle.
Should a man approach you on the sidewalk and ask for a dollar, if he gives you a choice, then your response is entirely one of charity. If a man comes up to you and says “Give me a dollar or I will punish you”, that is not charity, that is ‘theft’.
If there are ten people in a room and they vote to take some of your money away from you against your will, is that no less theft? Theft, in this case = taking something of yours away from you, against your will, under of threat of certain and real retribution for failure to do so.
The only difference between taxation and theft in that room is the number of people that are being stolen from, and by how much.
Taxation is at best a necessary evil. There is no inherent virtue in taxation. If something was so absolutely, universally wanted, we would not need to tax people to achieve it.
The fact that the man demanding my dollar will use 75% of that dollar to do some good also does not negate the fact that his action still constituted theft.
I myself, also somewhat more Libertarian than anything else, do not call for the elimination of all taxes, nor do I vote against all taxes. I understand that we need to pay for a good military, police force, etc. However, looking at the rampant waste, misuse and corruption and lack of basic accountability of the current system, I am very, very reluctant to just bend over and say ‘sure, take some more.’ I am no less tolerant of governments taking other people’s money instead of just mine. The problems of waste, corruption and gross misuse are not mitigated simply by shifting the source of revenue to people that live in a better house than me.
Hope this helps.

“They did not do it by themselves.”
Of course not, and with only a few extreme exceptions they have been paying higher rates and a lot more $$$ than those making less. They did not do it by themselves, they were just better at it. Bully for them!

“refuse to acknowledge their debt to the rest of society.”
Exactly what is their debt to society? What is MY debt to society? Yours? What this debate is about is exactly establishing that level. There is no known objective formula for determining one's debt. We’re not going to get all the super-rich people’s money even if we tax their assets 99%, since they’d likely just ship their assets (businesses, jobs, cash flow, investments) overseas long before we got it all. Besides, there’s simply not enough wealth in the rich people community to support the government’s debt. They (for the most part) already pay a higher rate, pay a LOT more than you or I, we’re just dickering over the fine points of how much more of their stuff should we take from them so no more has to be taken from us.

Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich; quote from Sebastian-Roch de chamfort, (1741-94).

Many times when the government steps in to help the poor by taxing the rich those in government line their pockets, while the poor receive just enough to keep the government program going on the taxing of the rich. This type of government taxation causes bureaucracies to grow and big government to bloom at both the expense of the poor and the rich.

As the above article, by Jordan Sekulow, states it is good for each person to give with a cheerful heart. Now as the Christmas season is here whether you are rich or poor there is someone that will appreciate your gift of kindness to them today.

Posted by: colonelpanic | December 14,
Do you think that you earn ANY points at all from god because you want to pass laws FORCING people to share their wealth ???
==
New International Version (©1984)
Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Then Jesus went into the temple, threw out everyone who was selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the moneychangers' tables and the chairs of those who sold doves.

Tax cuts: Government is not a charity

Then why do they want you to give till it hurts?

Posted by: colonelpanic | December 14,

There are entire levels of hell dedicated to welcome this fellow once he's finished in this world.
We'll go for greed and gluttony for starters.
The entire Republican conservative faith seems driven by the seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.
Pretty much describes the conservative movement, doesn't it?

==========================================

typical Liber gibberish !

Do you think that you earn ANY points at all from god because you want to pass laws FORCING people to share their wealth ???

You get NO CREDIT from god for doing that which you are FORCED TO DO ! Only for that which you do WILLINGLY out of kindness or charity !!!

Socialism is anti god by definition ... look at the communist former USSR religion was OUTLAWED !

No liberal is a friend of religion.

Sorry progressives but you do not get to play the 'god card' your moral argument is bankrupt!

Human Right attorney? What a laughable crock of BS. Jesus wouldn't wee on this greedy ***-*** if he we're on fire.

The Post should totally embarrassed by allowing this puke to turn the Bible into a an advertisement for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Kuato - the Bible does not say that one achieves salvation by becoming poor. Making someone else poor does not increase your chances for salvation or theirs.

The Bible says that a good Christian will remove the beam from their own eye before they attempt to remove the speck from the other person's eye. So no Christian can claim a right to take someone else's money while they still have anything of their own.

David6 - it depends on how the taxes are used. Government services are a legit use. Wealth redistribution is not.

P.S. I'm more leftist than right. Wealth redistribution is NOT part of classical liberalism, and is not a pillar of leftist political thought.

Why are people allowed to comment on the Bible when it appears they have not read one.

The Bible is full of government/state making sure the poor is fed and people paying their taxes.

Please note: when God set up Israel, it was His nation/government/state. He gave the Children of Israel several rules. His government was a Theocracy. And one of those rules for that government was, Lev 23:22 "‘When you REAP the HARVEST of your land, you shall not WHOLLY REAP the corners of YOUR field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from YOUR harvest. You shall LEAVE them for the POOR and for the STRANGER: I am the LORD your God.’”"

Notice how this verse COMMANDS the people to LEAVE food for the POOR. And not TAKE it ALL. In other words, although you may own the land and property, let the poor have some of the BLESSING God gave you. Since we don't have FIELDS anymore, it would be the MONEY we have been BLESSED with.

History lesson for those scholars who say they understand the Bible but don't read it. God set up a Theocracy, which is a type of government. In this Theocracy He had rules. Read some of them and you'll find out that "Jordan Sekulow" is totally wrong in this article.

Deut 15: "7 “If there is among you a POOR man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, 8 but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. 9 Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the LORD against you, and it become sin among you. 10 You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand. 11 For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’"

Mark 12: "13 Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words. 14 When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to PAY TAXES to Caesar, or not? 15 Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?”
But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.” 16 So they brought it. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”"

Think About It

If it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven, good Christians should seek to help the wealthiest Americans by taxing them aggressively so that they, too, might stand a fighting chance at achieving salvation.

What does the Bible have to do with developing a tax system that both stimulates growth and protects the people with basic needs? Nothing! Leave the development of a tax strategy to the elected officers and economists, and leave religion for your most intimate spiritual needs. Don't try to mix water and oil.

I don't need the government telling me about faith. I don't need them taking my money in taxes and using it for what they want. I am a very nice and charitable person, but I can do more by myself than the government can. My parents pay 700 dollars a month for insurance, plus their supplements. They are poor people, I have to help them before I help others. I watch while 16 year old after 15 year old gets pregnant and gets health care and food stamps, then they get a TV show. We have the government telling us what to feed our kids, etc.

Jesus also taught that people should be able to fend for theirselves too.

I don't need the government telling me about faith. I don't need them taking my money in taxes and using it for what they want. I am a very nice and charitable person, but I can do more by myself than the government can. My parents pay 700 dollars a month for insurance, plus their supplements. They are poor people, I have to help them before I help others. I watch while 16 year old after 15 year old gets pregnant and gets health care and food stamps, then they get a TV show. We have the government telling us what to feed our kids, etc.

GabrielRockman -

Stealing? Are you another one of the sociopaths on the right who alleges that collecting taxes is stealing?

Rich people got rich because they are part of a functioning, wealthy society. They did not do it by themselves. They know it, even if some, like the Koch brothers, refuse to acknowledge their debt to the rest of society.

All of a sudden, liberals are upset if you want to separate church from state.

And they're so ignorant of the Bible that they don't even know that there are commandments against coveting and stealing.

David6, I forgot to mention one thing. I am of the opinion there is little real “poverty” in the United States. I have traveled extensively to Africa and Asia. By any “real world” standard, the relatively less affluent of the US are pretty well off. There are billions of other people who would switch their economic situations in a heartbeat if given the opportunity to live like the “poor in America”.

David6, yes I do love Biblical truths, but it would be foolhardy to not look at the entirety of scripture for content and context. The point is that a lot of people here are expressing a desire to “take” from the rich to fund their definition of “charity”. Morally, I believe this is a direct violation of God’s 10th commandment about coveting thy neighbor’s belongings. We are all called by God to be charitable. The rich person is held to a standard consistent with his wealth. In many cases, it becomes a snare. God also expects the poor to be charitable. All of us, rich and poor, are commanded to give at least 10%, hopefully more. Even the very poor are blessed when they give (e.g., Widow’s Mite is a good example).

What I really detest is liberal politicians who go on about “our need to help the poor”, but who do virtually nothing themselves. Vice President Biden is a good example, where his tax forms document he donates less than $1000/year, which is less than 0.5% of this salary.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Why do so-called Christians go so far out of their way to ignore what Christ actually said? Of course it is absolutely immoral and unChristian to give the super rich tax cuts when the nation is in peril and there are people going in need.

jwdkturner -

Apparently you love biblical truths, as long as you get to pick them out. Clearly you have no time for what Jesus said about the rich or their greed.

There are entire levels of hell dedicated to welcome this fellow once he's finished in this world.

We'll go for greed and gluttony for starters.

The entire Republican conservative faith seems driven by the seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Pretty much describes the conservative movement, doesn't it?

Posted by: colonelpanic | December 14, 2010 7:13 PM
===================================
Right-O Colonel.

Kudos to St. Paul for perfect spelling ...

How funny is it that a Lawyer should parse the words of a translation to prove his case ?

Jordan, you are spot on with Biblical truth here. So many others think "charity" is taxing others to pay for their pet cause.

This kind of "legal argument" is confusing. It is confusing since most of us believe in the separation of church and state; and the author lumps charity into a service of the church. And then equates charitable giving to a social safety net.

In this kind of discussion, it might be helpful to define the poor, as a class who does not own any property. Thus, they might pay less taxes (certainly less property taxes than a home owner). But the poor still has to work, and contribute to society (perhaps by volunteering).

And yet if we imagined a society that had absolutely no safety net (because that is not a government function), then we wouldn't have much of a quality of life for poor folks.

In other words, we as a compassionate society must lend a hand to the poor. We cannot turn our back on the poor.

Now imagine a country with no government (like a tribe), where people help each other gather food, and make shelters, etc. Some might call this subsistence farming. The safety net is strong.

The challenge in our country is to strike a balance among the state and many churches. The constitution declares that congress cannot create a state sponsored church (like the Church of England), but a compassionate safety net for the poor is not "unconstitutional."

"in America the richest also give the most money to charity."

Thats a terrible argument, the richest give the most to charity because they have the most to give. The person who gives away money they are in need of, even if its less, is way more charitable than a wealthy person looking for a tax deduction, looking for a way to impress his peers, or looking to get a name on a building. There are certainly very charitable wealthy people with noble intentions, but judging charity solely by the size of your gift does not indicate nobility and is a very superficial metric. If as a country our goal is to encourage more charitable giving, we should give better deductions for donations for all Americans regardless of annual salary, not just give the wealthy a break to only allow them to be more charitable.

I agree that the purpose of the government is to provide security while protecting liberty and freedom, however, to have liberty and freedom in this country means a person must have enough money to get by and to be able to afford to make life changes like going to college, maintaining your health, moving, and changing careers. All of which can be encouraged for the least well off through well implemented social programs.

I'm not going to make an argument on the benefits of tax breaks in general now since we are running a huge deficit, but by all means the richest people in this country control more wealth then they have at any time in the near past and they are only getting richer relative to the rest of society. Its pretty clear that giving them free will to be charitable isn't resulting in a well balanced society which is a key to freedom. I believe having a free country is morally righteous, allowing the rich to control more of the wealth in this country does not sound like freedom to me or the 99% of americans who aren't wealthy. The increased taxes on the wealthy will not change their freedoms in any substantial way, however, directing that money towards those who have a significant financial disadvantage will. We don't need to redistribute wealth in this country because there are poor people, we need to redistribute it because the number and magnitude of the poor people is getting worse.

There are entire levels of hell dedicated to welcome this fellow once he's finished in this world.

We'll go for greed and gluttony for starters.

The entire Republican conservative faith seems driven by the seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Pretty much describes the conservative movement, doesn't it?

It's particularly interesting to see you tell us what is moral when anyone who has bothered to read the Gospels knows that your teachings are contrary to those that Jesus taught. I understand that you claim to be Christian. Of course the Southern Baptists claimed to be Christian when they broke away to form their own pro-slavery Baptist convention more than a century and a half ago, so there's really no limit on what one can preach and still claim to be Christian.

Please explain how it is moral to vote for those who support tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts in spending on the social safety net. Sure, the United States has the highest rate of voluntary contributions to charity and religious organizations, but those are clearly not adequate to keep the poor from starving, freezing, or living in the streets. It's also not what Jesus wanted. He had no use for wealthy blowhards who were proud of their donations to charity. We would be much better off with a lower rate of giving and enough government spending and taxing to take care of the poor.

Every time someone votes for a Republican or a Blue Dog who promises tax and spending cuts, they are saying that they think their own wealth is more important than the welfare of others. They may call themselves Christian, but they clearly do not follow what Jesus taught.