Skip to comments.Boomer Religion (When Sean Hannity and Michael Moore met)
Posted on 10/28/2009 10:29:46 AM PDT by NYer
Michael Moore? This thread needs a BARF ALERT.
Can government do the work of God (Charity)?
What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts (”Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” - 2 Corinthians 9:7). Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of “Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit.”
Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government “aid” to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.”
There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do “God’s Work.”
If a government takes a portion of a man’s wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman’s property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil?
When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people’s tax money and does “God Work” with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an “Ungodly” man?
Today, the US government (federal, state and local) takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person’s paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers.
The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God’s work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the “right things?”
Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outlined in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.
In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the “Great Society” programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to “help families and children” or “buy votes” depending on your political viewpoint.
At the beginning of the 1960’s, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970’s there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).
Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.
Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though “poor” by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.
The “Great Society” programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world results are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.
I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the “Great Society” programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the “Works of God” that the government has done or is trying to do.
I have visited many countries in which the government “guarantees” that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave “government help” for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The “worker’s paradises” of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do “God’s Work.”
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is “Who should help those in need?” I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting.
Government help should be the last resort. “Charity,” enforced by the government, is not charity, it is extortion. “Charity,” delivered by the government, is not charity, it is a bribe which corrupts both the giver and the receiver.
‘bright, likable, and deeply sincere’
are you kidding me?!! Yikes!!
If I remember correctly, I was struck by the fact that Moore quizzed Hannity on what the *sermon* was about. As a former Catholic, I don’t recall ever calling the Homily the Sermon (but maybe that’s regional or something) and I rarely recalled what it was about after I walked out the door. It made me wonder if Moore ever attended a Catholic service...it just seemed a little weird. Of course, I also have a difficult time believing Moore as a spokesperson for Christianity. I know we are not supposed to judge someone’s salvation, but we were told that we would know them by their fruits.
Michael Moore is married?!? This should be in Breaking News!
Michael Moore is married?!? This should be in Breaking News!
I don’t remember Michael Moore being pacifist in the 90s.
Wow, my FR has been seriously deranged since yesterday evening...very slow...sorry about the double post.
Hannity has little room to argue with Michael Moore, since he is a big time cafeteria Catholic.
We always called it the sermon when I was younger, and I could remember the “sermon” if the priest was a good speaker.
And only on a temporary basis. But the problem for most today is that gov't handout programs create dependency which in turn creates a large voting bloc. Essentially, it is a contemporary form of slavery. And once in place, can never be removed without incurring the wrath of the recipients and their lobbyists. It is insidous, at the very least.
I have only heard a few priests who were good speakers. I think they are more often good administrators. However, it was just weird that he kept pressing Hannity for an answer (which Hannity didn’t give him). As if that marked whether or not he went. I’d like to give Moore a quiz on the Bible.
My gut instinct often was that Michael knew his audience and was trying to one mock them and taunt them with his intellectual reasoning of God, Jesus, religion, and bible. Which sounds a bit convoluted but Micheal's style is to manipulate people with trite resentments and concerns the audience may hold or hold dear and be unaware of. He does this often with issues of class which many people-- whether they like it or not or want to admit it or not--make assumptions about other 'classes' whether those assumptions are small, large, accurate or inaccurate.
Michael plays on these assumptions and often subconscious concerns to present his own flimsy highly biased presentation. He is highly successful because of this exploitation. He did this very much in the interview with Sean. Might Michael truly be a pacifist because of his religious upbringing? Yes. Does he thoughtfully and with the open heart of a Christian discuss socialism, Marxism its restraints on God or how it undermines God? No he did not. He forth rightly used whatever heart strings may pull on a Christian to manipulate his OWN socialist, liberal ideals which is what Satan does.
Evil quotes the bible too, but only in use toward his objective to get one AWAY from Christ and dependent on evil. This is exactly what Michael did and does. One has to listen to people like this with the holy spirit inside, not just with their intellect. The holy spirit in me at the time notice all of this manipulation right away and it did not sit well then as it did not sit well when I read how the writer of this article was so manipulated as they were trite in their assessment of Micheal missing one very important element of any Christian which is the spiritual gut instinct--the weighing against prayer and how it sits inside the soul of another. My soul felt ill listening to Michael through out. Sort of how I felt when I listened to Barack Obama quoting scripture.
To fight this sort of evil I believe we must also know our own crosses and not let the evil ones tell us what they are (such as telling us we are racists or that we should hate white people or people of wealth--all of which is content to be carried to the Lord and not assessed from people who do not even know us like the Michael Moores' and Barack Obamas' of the world. (Heaving emphasis on OF THE WORLD).
They use the tiniest shame or negative passing thought we may have and exploit it for evil good, not the Lord's. Know your cross and pick it up and follow the Lord or just pick it up and follow the Lord, but do not let Michael Moore dictate what your cross should be according to him and follow Michael.
Hannity is a CINO.
Excellent description and I know exactly what you mean. Good post.
Personally, I would love nothing better than for someone like Michael Moore or Bill Mahr to come to Christ and be transformed. What a witness that would be.
I thought your comment was right on as well.
I knew what you meant. It was very well said.
Not, not, and indeed not. A pair of shallow, canting, showbiz phonies, cut from the same filthy cloth.
They deserve each other.
“So disposed, the two seem to be less the products of Roman Catholicism than of two virulent heresies that washed through U.S. religious education at all levels beginning in the 1950s: Modernism and Marxism. Theirs is boomer religion.”
We Orthodoxers must have missed those heresies at Liturgy or Greek School.
There 's a difference between ignorance and outright modernist heresy.
Both, of course, have been exposed to Americanist modernism.
Hannity exaggerates the positive role of multinational corporate capitalism
(Big Business) and its Social Darwinism (which he seems to think is the essence of "conservatism"), while Michael Moore lapses into Statism and collectivism
without mentioning that it is not an article of faith to have a statist system
of collectivism (like the Fabian Socialism of Obama & Co.).
It's clear on the Marxism.
But some conservative would have to explain why Social Darwinism
and the price gouging of multinationals do not reflect the essence of
"conservatism" in a way which corrects the errors. The culture war
involves a LOT more than just market forces.
I’ve actually seen Michael Moore in Church on Sunday. Ironically, for this anti-capitalist man-of-the-downtrodden, the Church I saw him in was Good Shepherd in Beverly Hills.
Could you give a few examples?