Brother, can you spare a paradigm?
I would stay out of this, but...well, you know I won't:
Dr. Ben Carson's books (e.g., Gifted Hands and Think Big) demonstrate what even the sorely disadvantaged can accomplish with vision, study and hard work.Because I remember distinctly in the Gospels Jesus telling the poor he met (poor just like him, by the way) "Go, thou, and do vision, study and hard work, like I did. Instead of asking God for help. I mean, really!"
And I won't stay out of this because it's the "Family Research Council" and they address "Dear Praying Friends" and they preface the whole thing with a scripture verse (of course!).
I do, however, have to counter this quote from the good Dr. Carson with a scriptural lesson; but the lesson is more than a few words:
Not only did Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and several of the other founding fathers speak out against government redistribution of property, but in 1795 the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact.... The legislature, therefore, has no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation. It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance and every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution." ...Let's go to Luke!
The crowds would ask him, "So what should we do?"Short, sweet, and to the point. Damned redistributor of property!
And he would answer them, "Whoever has two shirts should share with someone who has none; whoever has food should do the same." (Luke 3:10-11, SV)
And in keeping with our theme du jour, even if all you've done today is keep up with these posts:
The good doctor missed this part of the SCOTUS decision:
ReplyDelete"Every person ought to contribute his proportion for public purposes and public exigencies; but no one can be called upon to surrender or sacrifice his whole property, real and personal, for the good of the community, without receiving a recompence in value."
Hmm...
And Ben:
ReplyDelete"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
It's like they stop reading...
Also misses lots of words like 'arbitrary' and 'consent'. Jebus.
ReplyDeleteSort of off topic, but a pollster from FRC called and asked me only one question, "Do you approve of Obamacare?" And I answered, "Yes, I do." Click. I was quite pleased to be given the opportunity to answer.
ReplyDeleteSort of off topic, but a pollster from FRC called and asked me only one question, "Do you approve of Obamacare?" And I answered, "Yes, I do." Click. I was quite pleased to be given the opportunity to answer.
ReplyDeleteBut you're supposed to disapprove of Obamacare, and approve of the Affordable Care Act!