Speaking earlier this week to a group of kids, President Obama invoked Jesus and the three wise men to justify his agenda of redistribution. I’m not exactly a religious scholar, but this surely is absurd. Doesn’t Christianity (and, I assume, Judaism and other faiths) require individuals – using free will – to act charitably? Using the coercive power of government to forcibly redistribute other people’s money, by contrast, is moral preening at best and could be characterized as government thuggery. Writing for Townhall.com, Cal Thomas certainly was not amused:
Speaking Monday afternoon to a group of children from the Washington, D.C., Boys and Girls Club, the president delivered a mini sermon on “why we celebrate Christmas.” He asked the children if they knew. One piped up and said “The birth of baby Jesus.” …The president spoke of what Jesus “symbolizes for people all around the world,” which he said, “is the possibility of peace and people treating each other with respect.” And then, in the best tradition of a community organizer, the president said Jesus is about “doing something for other people.” Even the “three wise men” were invoked to support the president’s idea of wealth redistribution: “…these guys … have all this money, they’ve got all this wealth and power, and they took a long trip to a manger just to see a little baby.” And what conclusion should be drawn from that journey? The president told the children, “…it just shows you that because you’re powerful or you’re wealthy, that’s not what’s important. What’s important is … the kind of spirit you have.” To the president, this means the spirit of government taking from the productive and giving to the nonproductive. To Him, Jesus is a socialist, or perhaps an early Robin Hood. …only people can be compassionate. A government check too often brings dependence and a sense of entitlement.
I must quibble with one small part of Cal’s column. Robin Hood was a freedom fighter, not a redistributionist. His mission was to reclaim money that the nobles stole (i.e., taxed) from the peasantry. Modern society has turned the story upside down.
[…] P.S. Since the first part of this post dealt with religion and compassion, it’s time to share Libertarian Jesus as well as the thoughts of Cal Thomas on whether Jesus was a socialist. […]
[…] Like Cal Thomas, I don’t think the Bible supports coercive redistribution by government. […]
[…] of these people even might argue that Jesus was a socialist. Back in 2009, I shared some excerpts from a skeptical column by Cal Thomas on this topic. Today, let’s take a deeper […]
[…] made his first appearance back in 2013, when he cautioned that charity was a personal obligation rather than a government […]
[…] Leftists aren’t the only people to mischaracterize Robin Hood, as I noted when discussing an otherwise-solid column by Cal […]
[…] Leftists aren’t the only people to mischaracterize Robin Hood, as I noted when discussing an otherwise-solid column by Cal […]
[…] of amusing posts featuring Libertarian Jesus (see here and here), both of which make the point that compassion isn’t demonstrated by redistributing someone else’s […]
[…] of amusing posts featuring Libertarian Jesus (see here and here), both of which make the point that compassion isn’t demonstrated by redistributing someone else’s […]
[…] much enjoy Libertarian Jesus (featured here and here) because he makes a very serious point about the absurdity of equating government coercion with compassion (a lesson Pope Francis needs to […]
“Modern society has turned the story upside down.”
“Creative writing” has long played a role in writing “history”…since it’s always written by the victors.
[…] much enjoy Libertarian Jesus (featured here and here) because he makes a very serious point about the absurdity of equating government coercion with compassion (a lesson Pope Francis needs to […]
[…] don’t overlook the serious part of the message. As Cal Thomas succinctly explained, it’s hardly a display of religious devotion when you use coercion to spend other people’s […]
[…] don’t overlook the serious part of the message. As Cal Thomas succinctly explained, it’s hardly a display of religious devotion when you use coercion to spend other people’s […]
[…] there’s another problem with the Pope’s approach. Being charitable to the poor is supposed to be an act of free will, not the result of government coercion. Yet by making statements that – at the very least […]
[…] Since we’re on the topic of socialism, it’s worth pointing out that Jesus wasn’t in that camp. Though I’m not sure we can say the same thing about the […]
[…] we’re discussing whether Jesus is for big government. Or, to be more accurate, the Pope has started a debate about whether free markets are bad, […]
[…] we’re discussing whether Jesus is for big government. Or, to be more accurate, the Pope has started a debate about whether free markets are bad, […]
[…] I hate politicians that invoke God as part of their rationale. That includes Obama and Kasick. —https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/was-jesus-a-socialist/ […]
[…] a laugh or two. I like this poster because it makes the very important and serious point (which Cal Thomas has succinctly explained) that it’s not compassion when you use coercion to spend other people’s […]
[…] metric, but there’s a serious point to be made. I’m not a religious scholar, but I wrote several years ago that, “Doesn’t Christianity (and, I assume, Judaism and other faiths) require […]
[…] like this poster because it makes the very important and serious point (which Cal Thomas has succinctly explained) that it’s not compassion when you use coercion to spend other people’s […]
[…] what about ordinary leftists? Why do they support statist policies. My own personal guess is that they think good intentions make them good people, and they naively assume that spending other people’s money is a way of solving problems (which […]
Anytime I hear someone claim that Jesus was a socialist, I ask them to explain that in context of the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). Three men are given talents (ie. money) in differing amounts based upon their different abilities. Each is tasked to do something profitable with the talents. Two are able to increase them, but one man hides his talent because he is afraid. Instead of taking from the productive servants and giving to the fearful (ie. from the “haves” to the “have-nots”), the master takes FROM the unprofitable servant and gives it to the profitable one. “Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath, shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”
This is quite literally the exact opposite of socialism…
Good job. I was actually talking about this the other day, but I also included the idea that Jesus spent his time with freedom fighters. Why are the popular myths and stories co-opted and the meaning changed? It seems like the opposite of good.
[…] P.P.S. Since we’re discussing who is a socialist and who isn’t, Cal Thomas has some wise words on whether religious faith requires socialist politics. […]
[…] P.P.S. Since we’re discussing who is a socialist and who isn’t, Cal Thomas has some wise words on whether religious faith requires socialist politics. […]
[…] also had to correct Cal Thomas on Robin Hood’s philosophical bona fides, so this is a very common […]
[…] also had to correct Cal Thomas on Robin Hood’s philosophical bona fides, so this is a very common […]
[…] what about ordinary leftists? Why do they support statist policies. My own personal guess is that they think good intentions make them good people, and they naively assume that spending other people’s money is a way of solving problems […]
[…] rarely comment about religion on this blog, but reading this story almost makes me hope there’s no such thing as Heaven. […]
[…] rarely comment about religion on this blog, but reading this story almost makes me hope there’s no such thing as Heaven. […]