Is The Giving of Stolen Money Really Charity; or Benevolence?

January 6, 2011 by
Filed under: Uncategorized 

First off, let me say that my life perspectives, and thereby my principles, come from the fact of my being first a Christian, and second a patriot who stands in admiration and awe of our Founders and Framers.  With that stated, I must ask; what truly constitutes charity?  Webster’s dictionary defines charity as “generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need.”  What I find conspicuously absent from this definition (likely because it was assumed) is the inherent fact that charity if from a giving heart.  Another way to say this is that, giving is of a personal nature. 

Does it really conform to the spirit and teachings of Christ if you remove money from my pocket to give to a homeless man, calling it charity?  Can anyone tell me where in the Bible Christ compels you to take money from Bill Gates or Rush Limbaugh, to give to an unemployed single mother in the name of giving, or to buy food for people in an impoverished or a wealthy nation, in His name?  Will someone please refer me to the location in scripture where God or his Holy Son, Christ Jesus, instructs us to take from Warren Buffett to accommodate a want or need for any American or foreign citizen in the name of good will or decency?

Once you have read the Bible, and have come to the realization that nowhere do these requests, rights, nor mandates exist; perhaps you can then move on to the U.S. Constitution, and read that, and then perhaps you can tell me where this right exists in that document. 

After that fails you, perhaps you can look into what constitutes a “Natural Right;” such as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, “…to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” and from there you can explain to me how, when, from where, and to whom, the right exists to violate my “Happiness” and steal the fruits of my “Liberty” (my property) to do with as you feel fits your conscience of “giving.”  After all, if my neighbor’s car breaks down, and he needs a new transmission; and if I go to your house and take your car, sell it, and give the money to them; is that not theft?  Will I not be prosecuted as a criminal?  Better yet, how about if I just take your “extra” car and give that to them?  (After all, you don’t really “need” it, it’s extra; and is it really fair that you have two cars while your neighbor has none.)  Is that morally adequate, or is it still theft (after all, it’s for a “good cause”)?  Upon reflection after having done this, have I sacrificed of a giving nature in order to help a brother in need?  Or have I simply used the sweat of your brow, coupled with my good intentions, to enrich someone else with your possessions for my benefit and glory? 

If I am so concerned for the person, and feel like helping them out, why don’t I simply take my money from my own pocket and give it to them?  And what if it’s not a car breaking down?  Instead let’s say it’s a man, with a family, who is addicted to drugs, with an addiction so strong that his habit gets fed while his children do not.  Clearly, I don’t want my money spent on someone with a drug habit, who refuses to care for his family; so what if I don’t support that cause, or if I feel it is an unchristian act of enabling if my money supports his bad habit?  Does the taking of my money by force to support a drug addict uphold; or violate; a code of basic moral decency?

OR…..perhaps you will be forced to admit that your willingness to give another’s money away, whether it be mine, Bill Gates’, Rush Limbaugh’s, Warren Buffett’s, or my neighbor’s; for your benefit or feelings, is actually government sponsored theft, and not charity.  Why do we look at it differently if we elect someone to do the thievery on our behalf?  Is it really different, or is it just accepted in today’s America?

I have asked a lot of rhetorical questions, but they serve a purpose.  At what point in America, where we were founded by brave, virtuous, and charitable men, who pledged “…to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” did it become legal or moral to take the “Fortunes” from people, in violation of their “sacred Honor,” in order to give it to others in artificial benevolence?  Samuel Adams said “The utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. {these ideas} are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”

And James Madison, the noted Father of the Constitution, and our fourth President, opined; “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Morality and Natural Law dictate that you (and I) have certain inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: meaning they are among, not limited to – as many further Natural rights exist.  Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of The Declaration of Independence read “…Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property.”  One of the many reasons we were thrown into the unthinkable, yet inescapable, need for the Revolution from the Crown, was the confiscation, disrespect, and utter disregard for personal property towards the American colonized citizens, from the Crown.  William Blackstone would argue (correctly I’ll add) that personal property, along with a respect for personal privacy; the ability to speak freely against moral or political wrongs; the ability to worship our Creator as we see fit; the right to defend oneself and one’s family; the right to be free unless and until we commit acts proving us unworthy of dwelling in a civilized society; are all Natural rights, which our Creator has given, therefore only our Creator can remove (again, so long as we do not prove ourselves unworthy of civilized society).  Taking property from one person to give to another has been known by renowned thinkers to be immoral “since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” It is not scriptural, it is not moral, and it is not legal in our nation under our Constitution. 

We must return to a mindset of personal responsibility, respect for personal property, and virtuous morality; from which true benevolence can and will flow (as it did for the first 120+ years of our National history).  Two of the most detrimental effects of the government stealing our fortunes, to trade to the “down-trodden” for votes are: that it robs the individual, who has earned that money (property), of the satisfaction for which the soul thirsts and is quenched when helping another in need; and it eviscerates the will of the one getting the hand out from self reliance, self preservation, and self determination.  One needs look no further than post-Katrina New Orleans for this proof.  When people have lost the common sense, self defense, and survival instincts basic to all God’s creatures, to retreat from danger, choosing instead to wait for the government to “save” them; it becomes apparent the level of immorality which has been perpetrated on the people, by the government, through handouts of ill-gotten bounty; thereby extinguishing the self reliance of an entire generation.  And for what; votes to perpetuate power?  When power is your end, you justify the means; and you thereby lose your soul.  I would choose to be a rock at the bottom of the ocean as opposed to a corrupt politician having to stand before the Throne of the Most High trying to justify this behavior!

We are, indeed, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; but we are also engrained by our Creator with certain inescapable traits.  We were, after all, created in His likeness; which means among other things, that we are giving like Him.  It pleases us to help others, displeases us to be stolen from.  It is naturally upsetting when someone takes your money from you, to help someone else and take the credit for the gift; when you could have and would have helped on your own.  What makes it exponentially more upsetting, and more unbelievable, is when the “someone” doing the taking is the very government which is banned by law from doing such, and indeed exists to protect you from such a threat.

When this violation of the law, and moral decency, becomes our reality; our only hope is a return of participation in the self-governing system by virtuous souls.  If you are called to serve, accept the challenge; if you are not called or choose not to answer, support those who are.  The time is upon us when brave men must once again rise to the occasion.  We did not seek this moment, we were born into it; placed by the Divine hand of Providence; the same hand which guided our Founders.  Are you with me, are you willing to fight, or are you going to give up on America?  The time is now, the challenge is great.  The elections of 2010 were a good start; the elections of 2012 are the next step.  Don’t sit idly by, and let it be, that one day you are speaking to your grandchildren, in a language once foreign, of what a great nation “America” was, when men were free, before her collapse.

If it’s got to start someplace, why not here; if it’s got to start sometime, why not now; if it’s got to be someone, why not me?


3 Comments on Is The Giving of Stolen Money Really Charity; or Benevolence?

  1. Chris on Fri, 7th Jan 2011 7:21 pm
  2. Luke 16:13 says you cannot serve two masters at once. You cannot earn enourmous wealth and serve god at the same time.

    Proverbs 22:26 (This one you’re really breaking when you speak against the social safety net); He who oppresses the poor to make more for himself or who gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.

    Deuteronomy 15:10
    Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

    This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (TNIV, Romans 13:1-7)

    Really, I could sit here and post bible quotes all day about how wrong you are, but even setting aside what the bible says, you’re still wrong (and very violent if your ideas about welfare were ever implemented).

    From a logical standpoint, Taxes are not theft. By your continued presence in the US past the age of 18, you have signified that you have agreed to follow the laws of the land. It is literally impossible for you to be compelled forcefully into taking a job in the United States. When you solicit an employer, you are soliciting yet another person who has already made a previous agreement with another entity (the government) that basically states that by getting access to the pool of workers groomed in the US, the infrastructure to sell your goods, and the ability to use an established paper, they agree to certain standards on how the worker is used, how the infrastructure is used, and how much that employer agrees to pay the government in taxes. When you petition that employer and accept a job, you’re accepting several agreements from several entities if not more. Every two weeks, you receive a pay stub that has your current agreement with the government on it. If you look at that and decide you don’t like that agreement; you are free to quit.

    What is Ironic is that welfare better insures your ability to turn down agreements you don’t like. If being insulated from unfair contracts is what you’re angling for, an increased social safety net will do that for you. A large social safety net with no standards would completely insulate you from such agreements.

    The fact that charity is not enough to cover social needs is an indictment against the population at large for the failure to follow god’s will to protect the needy. The only reason the safety net exists in the first place is because the top one percent and the top 5 percent have totally ignored everything the bible ever said about not hoarding wealth from others. Poverty kills, and greed is the weapon used to do it.

  3. Chris on Fri, 7th Jan 2011 7:32 pm
  4. Drug treatment centers pay for themselves. Saying you would not want to pay taxes for a treatment center is A) Barbaric towards your brothers and sisters and B) costs the state money through prisons. For every dollar spent on treatment centers, 7 dollars in long term savings is accrued and that is not including increased tax revenue from turning addicts into functioning citizens. I think you also might have a warped view of addiction. It is completely treatable, but because access to hospitals is severely limited in the US to people without funds, they are unable to receive treatment.

  5. admin on Sat, 8th Jan 2011 1:35 pm
  6. Chris,
    I initially thought your response was a joke. First, as to the scriptural references; I have not seen such an ignorant interpretation of scripture since pre-Civil War slave masters actually used scripture to justify slavery – to the slaves – who were of course ignorant of true scripture because they were never taught to read. And when you take completely separate points, and try formulating them into one conclusion, logically, it doesn’t work.

    Since you quote scripture, I’ll assume you’re a Christian. If so, then surely you understand the concept of Natural Rights; or those given by God, therefore they can only be suspended by God, assuming we have not proven ourselves unworthy of living amongst a civil society. If you don’t the argument is pointless. If you do, you have a lot of comprehension to catch up on.

    Your point on Luke 16:13, is illogical. Of course you can attain enormous wealth and still serve God; the two are mutually exclusive. Billy Graham attained wealth; did he not still serve God? If your goal is wealth, not service to the Creator, then your heart is not right, and you will likely fall, and will never be happy. But that is an issue in the relationship between the individual and God; NOT you!!! You liberals are often so presumptuous. Not serving two masters is better articulated in the reality of debt. If you have debt, you are servant to the lender, and it affects the relationship. That would be a logical use of that scripture, yours is not.

    Your Prov. 22:26 reference; again, this is a personal relationship with God issue. If you find someone “you feel” is in violation of this, you feel you have the right to take their money and give it to the poor??? Seriously??? What God do you serve?

    Your Deut. 15:10 reference; AGAIN….PERSONAL! YOU are to give generously. If YOU do not, YOUR relationship with God will suffer, and YOU miss out on the benefit to your conscience and soul. If you believe that it is God’s will for the government to take as much of your wealth as it wants, to do with as it pleases, with no oversight or restriction; then shouldn’t the church do the same thing to collect your tithe? Why then didn’t God set up a “church police” to TAKE from you 10% as a tithe from you? God doesn’t need your money, he wants you to experience the joy, and teach you the benefits, of giving. Taking your money to give in your stead violates these basic principles; so it’s not scriptural, and not of God. The government taking it and giving it serves to the same end.

    Now…. Your Romans reference is where your logic train REALLY goes off track. You use the above faulty interpretations to now assume that it gives the federal government (which is barred by its creation from redistributing wealth) the right to take as much as it wants from its citizens, to redistribute as it sees fit, because we’re supposed to “submit to government control.” This one could take a LONG time; but here are the basics. Our government was created (read the Declaration of Independence) based on Natural Rights; which are inalienable rights given by God, and it is a government OF THE PEOPLE! WE, the CITIZENS, are the government. It is not some detached body, which controls our lives, and disperses rights to us. The positions you take express your belief that that is how our government is based. You could not be more wrong. Our government, the government of the United States of America, is a body which exists to PROTECT and PRESERVE our Natural Rights; not violate them. You are correct that taxation is not theft, and I never said that it was. Taxation to pay for services which do not violate Natural Rights, are an assumed and necessary part of government. However, you cannot simply express your desire to take my money and give it to whomever you feel better needs it, and then carry out that desire. THAT IS THEFT, pure and simple. Just because the government does it changes nothing. The only way taxes can be justified is when they are spent on PUBLIC uses and services; or those which are available to the entire public as a whole (examples are roads, postal service, etc.). Private redistribution is theft, not benevolence.

    Another Natural Right is the “…Pursuit of Happiness.” This includes a job. While we are not entitled to a specific job, everyone is entitled to seek employment. We are free to seek personal wealth, personal enjoyment, acquisition of property, etc. These are basic Natural Rights, they are NOT contingent upon an “agreement with the government, on your paystub every two weeks, as a contract enabling you to work,” to paraphrase your assessment. You are SO FAR off base on this one, that I couldn’t possibly cover everything in the limited time I choose to dedicate to this. All I can recommend is that you study up on Natural Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence; as you have a whole lot of learning to do on these subjects.

    “Welfare better insures my ability to turn down agreements I don’t like?” I can’t make sense out of that, no matter how hard I try, so I’ll ignore it. It’s intriguing, though, wondering what the heck you could have been thinking when you wrote that.

    You make a lot of assumptions, none based on fact or logic. What proof, of any kind, do you have that the top 5% ignore scripture? Do you honestly not understand that these “wealthy” people own companies that provide goods we use, services we need, jobs, etc? Normally, I’d refrain from response to assumptions as illogical as yours, but I felt they should be addressed, since they’re on a public forum, that is my blog. Such illogical nonsense, if unchecked on my site, could be misconstrued as my accepting your faulty logic at some level. Nothing could be further from the truth; as you made not one point which was factually and/or logically correct. Educate yourself in that Bible you quoted, then on Natural Rights, then in our nation’s founding; at which point you’ll be well on your way to knowing how wrong you truly are.

    Thank you for your participation, though, in the arena of ideas. It’s been fun.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

order antabuse online