Shaun Groves
I’m doing something different this time around. When I can, I’m ignoring the inflection of their voices and the roar of the crowds, the color of their skin and their age, their suits and posture, their party and the translations offered up every minute by professional pundits on every channel and across the dial. I’m reading the words of their speeches and deciding for myself what politicians are saying. It’s sometimes not the things the blogosphere and the nightly news programs are buzzing about.
Take Barack Obama’s acceptance speech last week at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, for example. One sentence demanded my attention, stood out as the real crux of the speech, and has had me pondering. It’s gone unmentioned in the news coverage I’ve read and seen since.
”Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems,” Senator Obama said.
Then he continued, ”but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves.”
I took that sentence to mean that Barack Obama believes there are things American citizens can do for themselves and things they can’t. His government, I understand Senator Obama to have said, will do some of the things which the citizens cannot do for themselves – he implied that this is a limitation his government will be subject to.
I then read the paragraphs that followed carefully as Senator Obama listed those things for us – again, the things government will do because we cannot do them for ourselves. Here they are in order and in his words when possible.
Then Senator Obama specified three things we individual Americans must do because government cannot do them for us.
Instead of debating economic strategy and oil policy and budgets and blah blah blah, I’d rather focus more narrowly and think about three foundational questions Obama’s speech raises for me.
1) What is it government must do because we cannot do it for ourselves?
2) Which things on Senator Obama’s list belong and which don’t?
3) Which things would you add to Obama’s list?
Answering these leads me to three more questiosn we’ll call “bonus.”
1) Is everything we aren’t doing for ourselves stuff we can’t and shouldn’t do for ourselves?
2) Should government do the things we aren’t doing but should be doing or stick to the things we truly can’t do?
3) Is the only alternative to our individual ability the government’s collective ability? Are my only choices me and them?
Kent Kingery says:
Wow… I think you’ve just summed up in a few short paragraphs what I’ve been trying to ask/ponder/say/wonder for the last few years.
Lots to consider, and your questions at the end are worth spending time on…
Erin KT says:
Shaun would you clarify what you mean by your question 1b?
What do you mean by everything we aren’t doing? Like an example? I guess I mean that each individual person has there own list of things that they aren’t doing… so that “we” is confusing me.
shaunfan says:
Awesome post Shaun. I’m very partisan on this issue, but my basic answer is I love your premise and bonus question 3 sums it up for me. Government should not be designed “to do what I cannot do for myself”. What happened to by the people, for the people and of the people? The flawed logic in Obama’s overstated (& contradictory) proclamations is that government must not be either ‘of’ or ‘by’ the people if it’s made up of people who know better what I need and how to do it than me.
[Shaun here: Why shouldn’t the government do what I cannot do for myself? Also, Obama hasn’t explained his logic so how can we know it and deem it flawed or not flawed? Is this assumption or has he stated it outright somewhere?]
RevJeff says:
If the family did it’s “three” we wouldn’t need half of the list above it.
[edited by Shaun to limit the discussion to the questions asked]
shaunfan says:
My point about Obama’s logic being flawed is that he hasn’t explained how he’s going to reduce taxes for 95% (how is that defined?) and yet spend $150 Billion to create green jobs, which I’m pretty sure is an example of something entrepreneurial Americans can do for themselves without the $150 Billion of taxes that I don’t need the government to do for me even if I personally can’t do it for myself. As I’m letting my conservatism out, I’m not saying I don’t agree with being environmentally conscious. I would rather we do it profitably, the all-American way. That’s just an example of what I consider proposed government waste.
Veretax says:
1) What is it government must do because we cannot do it for ourselves?
2) Which things on Senator Obama’s list belong and which don’t?
3) Which things would you add to Obama’s list?
Answering these leads me to three more questiosn we’ll call “bonus.”
1) Is everything we aren’t doing for ourselves stuff we can’t and shouldn’t do for ourselves?
2) Should government do the things we aren’t doing but should be doing or stick to the things we truly can’t do?
3) Is the only alternative to our individual ability the government’s collective ability? Are my only choices me and them?
1a)
1. Provide for the maintenance and construction of infrastructure: Roads, Bridges, Water and Sewage, telecommunications (read basic telephone service not internet or cable), and Ports.
2. Provide for the common defense: Local And regional Law Enforcement, Military, could be stretched to intelligence gathering assets perhaps.
3. Facilitate trustworthy commerce: Ensure market’s are not corrupted (unbalanced scales), coin currency, (1. ties in here a bit),
4. Protection from the infringment of human rights. The right to life, freedom of speech, press, and assembly, the right to bear arms and to self defense. The right to a fair trial, the right for the government not to be poking its nose in the people’s personal lives without just cause, etc.
2a)
1. Chief on the list education. I do not think the government should be in the education business, it lends itself too easily to the spread of propaganda and factual inaccuracies, or for opinion to be passed off as fact. Now, it maybe can be done easier by the government, but I would argue that its becoming increasingly difficult to get good results due to the massive bureaucracies involved. (Most likely this should be left up to the states if at all, I’m of the opinion that if the boards for schools were comprised of parents of former students, you might find more public ownership for the failures, rather than blaming teachers, or blaming the government)
2. Protect us from harm. Mainly because it is so vague a generality that it doesn’t seem to be worth having said. What about harm the government does? The Keep our Water Clean and Toys safe rolls into this one. Yes I’m not happy that water could be bad, or toys could be unsafe, but is its government’s job to protect us from these things? Somehow I don’t think so. For that matter, why exactly do we need toys anyways?
3. Invest in Science and technology. I come from the school of thought that business and academia is better positioned to bring new science and technology, but yet again, this is a very general point. What areas of Science and tech are we investing in? How to make better sex toys? How to get a baseball to go fifteen more feet off a bat? How to make cars that can magically change color with the heat? How about investing in robotics that can be used to police, enforce, and restrict personal freedoms. that would be new science too would it not? So I don’t think the government should be half hazardly doing this. Its debatable whether they should be all that concerned with science or technology.
4. Why should it be the government’s job to every American? Is such even possible? You can’t force companies to hire people, and it is not the government’s job to see everyone have employment.
5. Why do workers need rewarded by the government for doing their jobs? Isn’t that what the pay check is for?
6. End dependence on oil from the middle east? How exactly is the government supposed to do this? Again generality. It might be a lofty goal, but should it be the government’s job to force a boycot of foreign goods?
7. Should it be the government’s business to provide everyone a college education? Are they not already doing this with Financial Aid?
8. Wait the government wants people to be sicK? Or wants to force workers to have more sick days? How exactly are they going to do that (man sounds like Obama wants us to be more like France.)
9. Government programs? Again way too general to talk about.
3a) How about having a minimally invasive government that protect’s the people’s best interests by spending as little as necessary for its operations?
1b) No, there are some things that are clearly excesses, not needs. We don’t need cable, internet, could even go so far as saying telephone. Do we need healthcare? I’d say no. Do we need retirement? No.
2b) The government should stick to things that are for the true common good. Just because the people arent’ doing something doesn’t mean it needs to be done.
3b) How about God’s ability to provide for us?
pat says:
) Is the only alternative to our individual ability the government’s collective ability? Are my only choices me and them?
My answer: I believe we have the collective ability to work thru our churches to help the sick/poor/mentally ill/prisoners spiritually and financially. However, it appears to me that a lot of churches are principally focused on building programs and making sure that any people whom they help look, believe and think just as the most powerful people in the church.
Perhaps if we Christians were doing as the book of James instructs, we would not need so called “government handouts”.
I believe aid that comes thru our government and aid that comes thru our churches should be kept completely separate to help preserve our religious/political freedoms.
mamasboy says:
“I’m reading the words of their speeches and deciding for myself what politicians are saying.”
Doesn’t this assume that the politicians are telling the truth about their record and what they would do if elected? I seem to remember a certain politician calling the national right to life committee “liars” in a recent CNN interview when asked to explain their vote against a bill practically identical to the born alive infants protection act. Since anybody with an internet connection and the inclination can read the text of the two bills and see that it was the NRLC which was telling the truth and that the politician had consistently misrepresented his position, then it calls into question the veracity of speeches that aren’t backed up by a past legislative record.
It can be tough to research the legislative past of candidates, but is a more reliable method of
determining how they will govern in the future than reading their speeches.
MB
Texas in Africa says:
You just asked a political scientist these questions. Fair warning.
There’s a term economists use to describe goods that are beneficial to everyone in a society and the benefits of which you can’t exclude anyone: public goods. In general, people who study politics tend to think of public goods as the things that government can provide and individuals can’t: national defense, clean drinking water, clean air, etc. Public goods operate on such a scale that it’s virtually impossible for any of us on our own (or even as smaller social groups, say a family or a town) to provide them for ourselves. Likewise, anybody who’s under the umbrella of a public good gets that protection; the army can’t choose to defend everybody in America except for one guy in Alabama. Things like infrastructure aren’t all technically public goods, but they fall in the same category in the sense that everyone uses them and they’re too expensive for any of us to maintain on our own.
If you look at it in that sense, then Obama’s list is probably too broad. Individuals and communities can do a lot of those things for themselves. But what I think Obama is talking about is more in the tradition of talking about the common good rather than simply public goods. And that’s where your last two bonus questions come in. “Should government do the things we aren’t doing but should be doing?” Well, if your view is that certain things are necessary for the common good (eg, making sure everyone isn’t starving, ensuring that all children get a chance at a decent education), then you’re going to say yes. The fact that churches and individuals fail to do those things I would argue is a problem, but I also don’t think that children should suffer because of our complacency. We know that most people are selfish and will not usually do the right thing, especially when it comes to spending money. So until the unlikely scenario that we step up and start taking care of the needy in our communities in real, lasting, sustainable ways, yeah, government’s the only option.
Shaun Groves says:
Insightful, Texas in Africa. Very clarifying for me.
The question I always come back to though is this: Does asking the government to do the church’s and the neighbor’s job make it less likely (completely improbable) that the church and neighbor will ever “step up”, as you said, and take care of others? If so, is that reason enough to stop asking the government to do it?
I don’t know. Honestly, I have no idea where I stand on that last question. Because, like you, I don’t want anyone to suffer. But is eliminating suffering the end game? I don’t think so. I think the who and why and how of alleviating suffering is what makes it “good.” Not just that it’s being alleviating. I think. I don’t know.
Texas in Africa says:
Of course it makes it less likely that the church will care for our neighbors if we think government is taking care of it (never mind that, by doing things like providing sub-standard schools for poor children and bad nutrition in school lunches, they aren’t really taking care of the problem).
But when I look at cases where government theoretically has stepped back, I don’t see people doing the right thing. Take, for example, the tax rebates most of us got this summer. The standard conservative line on this is that if you return money to the people, they can then put that money into charitable donations that they control, so they don’t have to rely on the government, and everyone lives happily ever after.
How many people do you know that gave their tax rebates to the poor? Or, for that matter, even gave part of the money to their churches? I didn’t. Maybe you see some of that in government grants to church-run social service programs, but overall, the evidence just isn’t there that individuals and churches actually would do what we’re called to do, so in that sense, I’d rather have government force the general public to at least provide a minimum of services.
That last sentence makes me think that maybe I’ve been studying Africa for too long.
While I certainly wouldn’t argue that any politician makes proposals that are “Christian” or “Biblical,” the notion that government should exist for the common good is one that runs back through Aquinas and Augustine. The problem is that we can’t agree on what constitutes “the common good.”
One of my classes at Baylor back in the day had a huge fight about whether you had to have pure motives for helping people. I was on the side that said, no, it doesn’t matter if you’re doing it for Jesus or not, if someone is better off at the end of the day, it’s a good. I still believe that.
Pat says:
I think the who and why and how of alleviating suffering is what makes it “good.” Not just that it’s being alleviating. I think. I don’t know.
My opinion:
I agree, Shaun, that the who and why and how of alleviating suffering is a part of what makes it “good” – doing God’s will, promoting human to human connectedness, friendship, possible mentoring, building individual “good self-esteem”, promoting team work within the family of God, and eventually building God’s kingdom.
These are not likely top priorities for most people who have no resources and are sick and/or abandoned and/or mentally ill and/or whose bellies are growling.
Nor does it seem that those hurting are a top priority for most of our churches.
I believe the government should continue to help people unless the churches step up. I also believe strongly that tax money and church donations, use of facilities and other resources should be completely separated.
I believe social clubs/networks also have their (separate) place.
Many Christians I’m acquainted with have no clue of circumstances in the lives of many of God’s creation “living on the dole” as they say; sometimes I wish I didn’t have a clue.
angie says:
I have many thoughts on this subject, but also have three kiddos that are calling for my time so I’ll be brief and keep most to myself.
But as I was reading through the comments, one thought that stuck out is that churches DID care for their neighbors until the gov. came in and began doing it for them. Once they realized they didn’t have to do it anymore, they (we) didn’t. Sad but true.
Gov can do somethings better than the church, but not much. As many disaters around the world have proven.
I’m sure many will disagree, and that’s ok too.
Jesus gave the responsibility to care for the poor and suffering to the church (broad sense). He never asked Rome or Jerusalem for help.
MamasBoy says:
Ingratitude
A sense of entitlement to someone else’s paycheck and
Inequity based on election demographics.
Those are three reasons why I don’t believe the government should be deeply involved in the charity business.
For instance, in 2007 the US spent over 1.4 trillion dollars on Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and Income Security. That did not include all the forms of retirement and disability expenditures, but I’m not sure whether that includes gov’t employee retirement benenfits, so I’ll not include those numbers.
1.4 trillion dollars is 52% of all expenditures. It was 55% of all revenues.
That leaves less than half of the federal budget to fund other expenditures like Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense (incl. War), Energy and Water, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior and Environment, Labor/HHS, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation, HUD and (last but not least) interest on the national debt.
1.4 trillion dollars is an awful lot of charity, most of which goes to the elderly, yet I’ve not once heard a retired person thank a worker for supporting them in their old age. 15.3% of one’s income is an awful lot for the government to extract in payroll taxes to support current retirees, and that doesn’t come close to covering it all (most of medicare is funded outside of the payroll tax system). The average payroll tax rate the government extracted from my grandparents was well under half that. However, because the government takes the money and gives it away, nobody who’s retired thinks twice about thanking them or showing a little gratitude. Retirees today think programs like social security should take up over half of all tax revenues because back in 1970, they took up 24.2% of all expenditures and back in 1980 they took up 35.4% of all expenditures. Current retirees are entitled to current worker’s money, darn it.
If one looks at the amount of charity dollars the government spends on children (for things like education, health care and food stamps), it pales in comparison to what the government pays on their most reliable voting demographic: the retired.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
I would probably be more of a fan of government charity if I saw it as equitable and just, but I don’t.
At the same time, would people support their parents and grandparents in their old age if it was voluntary? Would they take them into their homes and pay their bills with the extra money they get to keep if taxes are reduced? Is it possible somehow to actually encourage saving so that people pay for their own retirement instead of trusting the government to take care of them?
MB
Pat says:
Things I wuold like added to Obama’s list:
Life skills curriculum at all grade levels in public schools.
Control of types of weapons sold at gun shows.
Limit campaign spending.
pat says:
MB,
First of all, thank you for working and paying taxes.
I receive social security benefits and also work and am thankful for the job as well as the social security benefits. I’ve been working, paying taxes and voting since 1960 and am thankful that I can continue to do so.
Sometimes I resented the tax deductions from my pay as you do. But this country, with all its privileges and faults, was not created just for me the day I was born, tho I am grateful to have been born here.
I believe paid-in social security funds have been diverted into the federal budget for many years, first to help pay for the Korean War and afterwards into the general budget, with no paybacks to the SS fund.
Maybe we should thank each other?
MamasBoy says:
Pat,
Thanks for paying for your parents’ retirement and healthcare, albeit at reduced levels of benefits than you see today and at lower tax rates because there were far more workers per retiree.
I don’t resent the taxes that I pay being used for charity. I resent that charity being distributed inequitably with far more benefits given to the retired than children. Honestly, as unfair as the distribution system is, it wouldn’t bother me too much if it were sustainable. As it is, our elder support system is doomed, and for far more fundamental reasons than that the government played a shell game in the 80’s, cutting income tax rates at the same time as they raised payroll tax rates under what is technically known as a “unified budget.” The amount borrowed from the Soc. Sec. trust fund is a pittance compared to the shortfalls predicted in our elder care system in the not too distant future. My children and grandchildren will not experience anything close to the level of government retirement benefits seen by today’s retirees, despite the fact that they will pay far more into the system than today’s retirees ever did. The link below is the congressional budget office long term forecast. Read it and weep for your progeny.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8877
As I implied in my earlier post, I’m not sure what is worse: children refusing to voluntarily support their parents and grandparents, or parents and grandparents mortgaging their children’s and grandchildren’s future by racking up huge amounts of national debt to fund a desire for independence and material comfort. Both retirees and workers can be pretty selfish (IMHO), but only one side will win the public policy wars.
The thing is, I’m just not sure government charity is the best thing for society. It allows people to shirk their duties toward others and impersonalizes what should be an act of love.
But if those government systems weren’t in place would people step up to the plate and show the love that Jesus demands?
There are no easy answers to the lack of love in our society.
MB
Forever His Clay says:
I wasn’t aware that I lack the ability to protect my toys.
Adam S says:
You really don’t have the ability to protect your toys unless you make them all yourself. That is true with all products. Without some amount of government regulation all products are potentially dangerous. It is just a matter of how much you are willing to live with some level of dangerousness.
I do want to interject that the idea that the church was really good a providing for people, then the government came in and the church stopped is really wrong. Yes the church has provided for people throughout history, but never at the levels that government can provide for people. Before Social Security (for example since it has been discussed) the church did not widely care for all elderly and bring them up to a minimum level of income. They did provide for some elderly, but not all. We need to be careful about romanticizing what the church can do (or has done.)
Eric Hilliard says:
[Shaun here: Why shouldn’t the government do what I cannot do for myself? Also, Obama hasn’t explained his logic so how can we know it and deem it flawed or not flawed? Is this assumption or has he stated it outright somewhere?]
Because government does not do for you what you cannot do for yourself. Others do for you what you cannot do (or are unwilling to do) for yourself through their tax dollars, and a select few determine just what it is you need and cannot do for yourself. As Christ-followers we are called to love our fellow man and help them when they need help, but this is for us as individuals, not as a government. A government is a soulless entity, and cannot be held to the standards of, “doing unto the least of these…” Perhaps this is better explained with an allegory:
——
It was Sunday and Jack found his seat on the left-hand side of the church at the front, as he always did. In fact, he had sat in the same place since he was a small boy when his grandmother would take him to church. There was something welcoming and familiar about that old wooden pew, and every Sunday as he sat down his mind filled with fond memories of his experiences growing up from a small boy into a man.
As usual, Jack was greeted by the Jenkins family who sat in front of him, and the Thompson family who sat behind him. Jack was quite happy to see Jeff Thompson, a man who had recently come back from a long bout with prostate cancer. It looked as though Jack would not see his friend Jeff for many more days, but Jeff beat the odds and managed to pull through. Jack, in fact, was quite instrumental, helping to cover medical and family expenses while Jeff was off work due to his illness. It was a sacrifice for Jack, but he cared for his friend, and his friend’s family, so Jack considered it a privilege to help Jeff. In fact, this was Jack’s preferred method of giving, most of the time anonymously. Throughout the years he had seen money so poorly managed and wasted, that he seldom gave to his church, but instead obeyed the commands of Jesus to “do unto the least of these” as he felt Jesus would have him do.
Jack finished his greetings, turned around and took his seat as Mark Watson began with the Sunday morning announcements. After the announcements were complete, the congregation joined together in song, lead by Jennifer Teague — a gifted young woman with a powerful voice, who led them in 2 hymns and a praise chorus. At the conclusion of the singing, Pastor Boama who had recently become the new pastor of the growing congregation, said a prayer for the offering and began to pass the collection plate.
Pastor Boama handed the plate to Jack, and as was his custom, Jack began to pass the plate to the next person seated in his row without a contribution. However, before he could complete the pass, quick as could be, Pastor Boama snatched the plate from Jack’s hand and stared at him menacingly. Jack grew quite uncomfortable, as he was now aware that all eyes in the congregation were upon him. Jack sat silently as Pastor Boama continued to stare at him. After a moment of silence that seemed like an eternity, Pastor Boama quoted, “Jesus said, ‘Inasmuch as you have done it for the least of my brothers, you have done it unto me.’” Being that Jack had lived much of his life by this motto, he felt quite comfortable not putting anything in the offering plate, and so, continued to sit silently in the pew — still uncomfortable due to what had become quite a spectacle, but confident in his position that he was indeed following what Jesus had said.
Pastor Boama scowled all the more at Jack due to his unwillingness to cooperate. Then, without asking for permission or showing any hesitation whatsoever, Pastor Boama stretched out his hand, reached into Jack’s coat pocket, removed his wallet, and promptly removed several large bills from his wallet and placed them in the offering plate. Pastor Boama then reached into the offering plate and removed a few metallic objects and dropped them into Jack’s wallet — change. Tossing Jack’s wallet into his lap, Pastor Boama then moved onto the next person who quickly removed their wallet and placed a substantial amount of money into the offering plate. Judging from the look on Mark Turner’s face, he was putting the money into the plate more of out of fear, guilt and compulsion, rather than out of a spirit of generosity like the Apostle Paul had spoken of.
Jack sat there in stunned silence as Pastor Boama went from congregation member to congregation member collecting the “offering”. Some gave as Mark Turner did, out of fear and compulsion, and others who did not give what Pastor Boama thought was enough were quickly relieved of additional resources. Those who tried to “step out” for a moment, found the doors to the sanctuary were locked from the outside, and they quickly returned to their seat, awaiting their opportunity to “give.”
Once the offering had been collected, Pastor Boama took his place at the podium, and preached a sermon of how blessed everyone would be because they “chose” to give. Pastor Boama stated that the money collected would do great work in the far reaches of the world to end hunger and poverty. The substance of the message was lost to the listeners as they sat shell-shocked by the actions of the person they trusted when voted in as the new pastor. Everyone sat emotionless and disconnected until the message concluded. Then, one by one, without a word, everyone stood up and filed out of the doors to the church that were finally unlocked from the outside.
As the members of the congregation left, each experienced a whirlwind of emotions, though all shared commonalities. Each person, Jack included, felt as though they had lost something of themselves. They felt as though they had been stripped of their free will, robbed of their opportunity to give with a cheerful heart; their freedom of choice plundered. No one could believe that a man they all trusted, who’s words seemed to be sweet as honey when he spoke, could take from them that which they cherished most — their liberty.
—-
None of us would ever stand for a pastor or church that operates the way as described above, so why should we settle for a government that forces us to be “charitable”. It is morally and ethically wrong, and against the Constitution of the United States.
Adam S says:
Why is it that every time I join a conversation about the role of Church and government in the provision of charity some Libertarian joins and compares the government to an armed robber.
Problems with your analogy. 1) Every system of government needs some form of taxes, the question is how much, not if. 2) If your analogy held, then the evil pastor would know that the good guy had given to charity and would deduct that amount from what they thought was appropriate. 3) We live in a democracy and if people really are upset about taxes they are free to act on their disagreement (or move). 4) Free will is involved in taxes. You can choose not to pay, there are consequences but you can choose. Also refer to point three, if you disagree with taxes do something about it. It is not a dictatorship, a facist state or an absolute monarchy. 5) The constitution allows for the provision of taxes, to argue that it does not (or that the founders did not intent there to be any taxes) shows a lack of political and economic understanding.
Back to the discussion about the role of government and the church in charity.
Veretax says:
Adam,
Taxes are indeed needed for the government to function. The problem I have is the government taking additional money from me in the form of taxation, to give to a cause of their choosing. I am a firm believer that “We the People” are the best arbitrator of where our money could be useful. For example, if I didn’t have to pay so much in taxes, I would have loved to have taken that mom and her kids to Magic Mart for new clothes when i saw them rooting through a garbage bag at Loaves and Fishes. Unfortunately, I’m practically strapped for cash right now as it is that all I could do was pray that the Lord would find a way to provide for their needs.
I did learn one thing from the Democrat’s speech, I’m either middle class or poor, seeing as how I make less then the 40 some thousand a year they cited as being rich.
Eric Hilliard says:
Adam S,
Yes, every system of government does need taxes, but not necessarily and income tax. Before 1913 there was no permanent income tax. The US had taxes, but the population did not pay a direct income tax to the government. As it stands now with our current budget of over 3 trillion dollars a year, only 1/3 of it is paid by income tax. Knowing how much waste there is in government, our overextended military obligations and/or perceived obligations, and the amount of welfare for countries we push out, etc. etc., I’m pretty sure we could survive without an income tax if we got rid of the red tape and extra baggage.
The analogy does hold, because it is between God and I who gets the money he has provided me with through the fruit of my labor, not a government agency, that already wastes most of the money that I give it. You cannot force charity upon a person as it is a contradiction of terms.
I’m sure most people would be more than happy to act upon not paying taxes, and in fact many are. There are some political winds of change coming, though it will take some time to turn the sails.
Free will really is not involved in paying taxes, or at least how the money is used is not part of my free will. The fact that if I don’t pay income tax, I will be thrown into prison, kind of takes the whole free thing out of the equation.
Again, as mentioned above the constitution does make way for the provision of taxes, but a permanent income tax did not come about until a constitutional amendment that was finally ratified in 1913.
The final comment somehow seems to insinuate that this is not related to the question that was asked. The answer: people do for others what they cannot do for themselves, it’s called charity. It is not up to the government to make me a charitable person. If someone wants to keep all of their money and be a greedy individual, it’s their choice. To force them to be charitable robs them of their treasures on earth as well as their treasures in heaven.
Adam S says:
Vertax, if you make 40 some thousand dollars then you are rich compared the the rest of the world and compared to the US you are right in the middle. Median household income in around $45,000.
Eric, my main objection is the rhetoric of theft. I will strongly advocate for you to share your beliefs about taxes that are too high and governement that is too large. What I object to is the charge that the government is actually robbing you. They are not robbing you, you live in a representational government and you have the right to vote, you may not agree with the choice of the actual votes, but it is not theft.
Also on the free choice matter (way far afield, sorry Shaun) I maintain that you do have free choice. If God gives us free choice, but the mis-use of that choice is Hell, then how can you say that jail, as a consequence for your use of free choice to not pay taxes, is any less of a free choice. Free choice does not mean that you have to like the results, only that you have the ability to make a different choice. Civil disobedience, through many actions, including the refusal to pay taxes, has a long history in the US.
Biblefanmaryann says:
Hm, I wish I saw the Democratic convention.
I do think that Americans have a lot more control of what goes on in the country than a lot of people think they do. This country started and thrived on entrepreneurs, but now many Americans are simply employees and consumers. We need to get creative again.
Side note: From what I have seen and heard, Obama can’t ever make up his mind about things, and has said things like clinging to religion or bearing arms is outdated or something. THAT’S scary.
Eric Hilliard says:
Adam,
(Okay, we’re diverging quite a bit here)… the founders of our country viewed government as evil, but a necessary evil, that should basically be there to protect your liberties, and other than that, pretty much stay the heck out of the way. Government is too large, and too involved in the lives of its citizens (I think we can agree on that). I say this to say, that if you took the same people who framed the constitution and transported them over 225 years into the future, they would say the government is robbing them. In fact, I would go as far as to say they would be downright furious.
To wax theological concerning the free choice statement…. A man can live his entire life as a glutton. Giving to no one, but just consuming everything around him. Orgies, drunken parties, devil worship and the like, but his punishment does not come until his life ends. He exercised his fee choice, and paid the price. He chose to live for himself on this earth, and reaped his reward on this earth. Exercise of freewill resulted in delayed punishment. Exercise of freewill according to not paying your taxes results in judgment and punishment almost immediately. At minimum your analogy is comparing apples to oranges. If you consider it apples to apples, then I believe my analogy is the more accurate.
Overall, our entire system is out of whack. You have the judiciary playing the role of the legislator, you have the congress giving its power to make war to one man the president, you have the president fulfilling that role and it’s all unconstitutional. Government may be representative, but they still must abide by the Constitution.
Adam S says:
I am not really interested in defending Obama’s original quote. But if you are going to bring up a quote, you should use it in context and as a Christian, we should try to listen to what they are trying to say, not just the words. We all mis-speak or are not as clear as we intend to be. Obama has not said that guns and religion are outdated. The complete transcript and video that you are referring to is below.
About 1/3 way down to get to video and transcript.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html
Adam S says:
Eric we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t understand how the length of time until the result affects the freedom of the choice.
Another tack, the freedom of the choice is not affected by the result of the choice. The choice to steal something is still a choice, whether you are caught immediately or you are never caught.
One last try then I am done. As a Christians, Peter and John had the option of rejecting Christ before the religious and political leadership (Acts 4). Their lives were threatened and they were thrown in jail. The choice is seperate from the any reaction (either positive or negative). I think this is important because without an understanding of choice apart from result we cannot freely choose Christ.
Eric Hilliard says:
Adam,
thanks for humoring me, this has been a pleasant conversation.
The length of time more has to do with the consequences of free will, rather than the freedom itself. It can be difficult to mix imagery of the theological to the secular, or the eternal to the temporal. To sum it up in completely secular terms because we do not have a right to force our theological presuppositions upon others (this would limit their freedom according to our constitution) people have a right to distribute or keep the product of their labor without fear of someone taking it and giving it to someone else, whether it be another person or a government. (I’ve got an 8 minute video that does a great job of explaining the philosophy of liberty posted on the front page of my blog. It’s a little slow, but worth a watch).
Concerning choice – I can choose to do many things, legal or illegal. Things I choose to do that are part of my personal liberty, I should be free to do without fear of punishment from the government as long as it does not interfere with the liberty of others. The topic of my allegory really wasn’t to debate paying taxes as taxes to some extent are required. What I have a problem with is forced charity as this is an element of socialism. If the government takes my 5 dollars, it should be used to ensure the protection of my life, liberty, and property (this is the role of government as envisioned by the framers). My money being used for purposes other than that are unconstitutional. The Govt may take my 5 dollars and give it all to feeding the poor in Africa. What if I wanted to feed the poor in South America, or even in our own streets. The decision to redistribute wealth (particularly when we’re running deficits in our national budget) in this scenario belongs to a select few. This is socialistic in nature, and is contrary to how our government was setup. Plus, it just doesn’t work fairly, no matter how fair people try to say it is.
The role of government has been manipulated over time. The government was never meant to be a social service agency to the public or to those abroad. The Kingdom of God manifest through the lives of those who follow their King is meant to be the light to this nation and others. I believe free market system in conjuncture with our limited government Constitution, is the best way for successes in our nation, and in the Kingdom of God.
Pat says:
Some quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
The equality among our citizens [is] essential to the maintenance of republican government.” –Thomas Jefferson: Thoughts on Lotteries, 1826. ME 17:461
It seems that the smaller the society the bitterer the dissensions into which it breaks… I believe ours is to owe its permanence to its great extent, and the smaller portion comparatively which can ever be convulsed at one time by local passions.” –Thomas Jefferson to Robert Williams, 1807. ME
The will of the people… is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236
I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law.”
The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” –Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809. ME 16:359
The energies of the nation… shall be reserved for improvement of the condition of man, not wasted in his destruction.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248
Government as well as religion has furnished its schisms, its persecutions, and its devices for fattening idleness on the earnings of the people.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Clay, 1815. ME 14:233
We are now vibrating between too much and too little government, and the pendulum will rest finally in the middle.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1788. FE 5:3
“A just mean [would be] a government of laws addressed to the reason of the people and not to their weaknesses.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, 1793. ME 9:13
Energetic Government
“[Some] seem to think that [civilization’s] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75
BrokenH says:
Has everyone (especially the democrats) forgotten the words of President Kennedy; “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”?
Where’s that list?
Eric Hilliard says:
I believe the Obama version of Kennedy’s quote would go something like this…
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for other countries as we sink further into debt.”
BrokenH says:
Hmm? I can give a dollar to a homeless man or the government can take that dollar and the homeless man will get a fraction of a cent. If the government would stay out of my pocket, I could give far more than a dollar!
It amazes me that Compassion can feed, clothe, and school a child for $30 a month but we can’t get a school lunch for that. Most people agree there’s not much government does right but then they expect them to do more.
People make a difference, not government!
pat says:
John Kennedy also said:
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
Susanne says:
I don’t have time to answer all of these questions, but I’m going to ponder them for a while. What I do know is that Obama and his Democrats need to stay out of our wallets! If they take office (and the chances look pretty slim after Palin’s speech the other night!), they’ll tax us to death, and it won’t do the “little guy” a bit of good. Why should we line to pockets of legislators like Obama and Biden? No thanks. Country first!!!
Veretax says:
Here’s my problem with Taxes. Your typical day. I wake up, turn on the light, I’m taxed for the electricity. I walk to the sink to splash some water on my face, or get a cool drink of water and I’m taxed again. I jump in the shower, again I’m taxed for that. I turn on the TV to watch the news while my mind warms up enough to do a daily devotion and I am taxed again. I do my daily devotion, Thank God they haven’t figured out how to tax that yet. I make my lunch. Now I may not be taxed for the act of making lunch, but I’m hit with a tax at the grocer when I buy the food. I walk out the door get in my car to drive to work and the gas used to propel the car is taxed, plus the car itself is taxed, and requires fee’s to keep it registered, and the fee for my drivers license, (unless the whether is fair enough then I try to walk and am not taxed for that thankfully.) I get to work, and my computer logs onto a company network, which is connected to the internet and again I’m taxed, indirectly this time as the company is footing the bill for that. I work my but off get my pay check and that is taxed too. I go home, cook dinner, and that too is taxed, the food and the electricity, plus any water used. We are already over taxed in this country. We got taxes on sales, taxes on income, taxes on water, electricity, telecommunications, cable, internet, gasoline, personal property, real estate, and on and on and on. There is very little we do in this life that isn’t taxed, and this Senator from Illinois, Barak Obama wants to let the Bush Tax cut expire, with the promise that by 2012 he’ll give us a tax break. Right, seems to recall another former Democratic President did something similar. Have we forgotten what Bill Clinton did? So in my mind we are overtaxed, period.
shaunfan says:
Great discussion. Thanks for all of the great points as I get into this debate with family and friends who don’t seem to truly understand the logic behind their arguments which are basically ‘poor me’ viewpoints.
Coincidentally, they also don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Ultimately that is the most important point I want to make, which is my viewpoint is based on the Bible.
Adam S says:
Be careful with saying that your view is “The” biblical view. I would say that most of us here believe that our view are influenced by scripture and our faith, but saying that your view is “The” biblical view often makes too strong of a case. There has to be room for discussion. And frankly, I at least, am not convinced that I have it all right. I may have way to much of my cultural baggage tagged on to my reading of scripture so that I miss the point that God was trying to communicate entirely. I fully support and encourage sharing with people how you believe that your view is “a” biblical worldview. But it really needs to be done humbly for people to want to respond.
shaunfan says:
Adam, thanks for that reminder. I grew up without any type of “biblical” view and interestingly was Democrat in college and voted for Clinton twice. Then, Jars of Clay introduced me to Christian music and the gospel and I started seeking a “biblical” view and ultimately became a Christian in 1999. I changed political parties in 2000 and voted for Bush twice and plan to vote for McCain. I’m not saying Republicans have it right but a Christian friend recently encouraged me that freedoms that I greatly value (we homeschool our 3 daughters, public prayer, etc.) put me more in that camp.
As for trying to have a “biblical” view, I agree about maintaining humility and for the most part, I end up seeming like the loser in debates as I don’t resort to name calling or passing judgment. I also have way too much cultural baggage (I’m listening to Weezer right now while typing this), but my desire is to be a better follower of Jesus more than winning arguments.
pat says:
Abortion and the practice of homosexuality are free will choices as are the practices of greed and manipulation.
Real Estate Templates says:
Maybe you see some of that in government grants to church-run social service programs, but overall, the evidence just isn’t there that individuals and churches actually would do what we’re called to do, so in that sense, I’d rather have government force the general public to at least provide a minimum of services.
Veretax says:
“But overall, the evidence just isn’t there that individuals and churches actually would do what we’re called to do, so in that sense, I’d rather have government force the general public to at least provide a minimum of services.”
There are so many problems with this kind of thinking. First off the establishment clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It prohibits the establishment of any religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it. I’m a Rule of Law kind of guy, and frankly I think that it is wrong for us to be legislating and mandating government enforcement of these kinds of things. It is not in the powers of the Federal Government as enumerated in the Constitution to be the whipping stick for Churches that have gone a stray. Mark my words though, that if such a thing did start to happen, it would not be for the better of Christian Churches, but to its detriment.
The other problem is that I believe many are confusing the True Church with the “professing Church”. There is a different. Let us not forget what was written in Matthew 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
There are many today in our country who go to a “professing Christian Church” and there are many Churches which claim Christs name, but do nothing, absolutely nothing to advance the cause of Christ. Don’t confuse the corrupt liberal Mainline Denominations as I used to like to call them (the term is a bit outdated today I think, but back in the day that’s what I called them), with the truly saved laity of the True Church.
So no, I don’t think its Constitutional for the Government to enforce this on Churches, and I am absolutely against them trying to do so for such would threaten the freedoms we enjoy in this Country. Do we want to be like the militant islamic states where all Christian “Law” is held to including its prescriptions for punishment? Let us not forget that Jesus shed his grace on that Cross for us before we start forcing Churches to do these things which they ought to be doing anyways. Remember it is God who judges the Church, (See Revelation). It is not Government’s job to keep the Church in Line, and if one Church has fallen into malpractice, then God will raise up another in its place.
California Bankruptcy says:
Should government do the things we aren’t doing but should be doing or stick to the things we truly can’t do?
that i must say is a profound question and is one that i have been looking for answers myself for quite some time now..
Hill Country Ranches & Homes says:
No, there are some things that are clearly excesses, not needs. We don’t need cable, internet, could even go so far as saying telephone. Do we need healthcare? I’d say no. Do we need retirement? No.
western saddles says:
I’m a Rule of Law kind of guy, and frankly I think that it is wrong for us to be legislating and mandating government enforcement of these kinds of things. It is not in the powers of the Federal Government as enumerated in the Constitution to be the whipping stick for Churches that have gone a stray. Mark my words though, that if such a thing did start to happen, it would not be for the better of Christian Churches, but to its detriment. barbeque foods