KEEP JESUS OUT OF YOUR SOCIALISM

From the words of Jesus and the New Testament, ministering to the poor
and the needy among us is the work of Christian individuals and the
church, not the secular government. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord
is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. .
. ." Today's Religious Left wants to change that to, "He has anointed
the federal government to preach good news to the poor."

The Christian gospel is a message of salvation, not a message of income
redistribution and raising our neighbor's taxes. Jesus said that the way
to serve the poor is by giving generously of our own resources. "But
when you give a banquet," He said in Luke 14, "invite the poor, the
crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they
cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the
righteous."

The Religious Left is very generous -- with other people's money. In
fact, I believe the founder of the Religious Left was none other than
Judas Iscariot. When Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed Jesus with
costly perfume just days before the crucifixion, Judas lectured her and
said, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?"

Notice that Judas put on a show of caring for the poor -- even though
the money was Mary's, not his! The motives of Judas, John 12:6 tells us,
were corrupt and self-centered -- and Jesus responded with a stinging
rebuke.

At least one of the Lord's disciples was a "social action Christian" in
the Sojourners mold: Simon Zelotes (Simon the Zealot). Just as
Sojourners president Jim Wallis was once president of the Michigan State
chapter of the militant Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Simon
Zelotes was a young political radical who attached himself to Jesus
because he thought Jesus would lead a revolt against the Roman Empire.

Simon saw Jesus as a political Messiah who would topple the powerful
while lifting up the poor and oppressed. But Jesus was not a political
Messiah. He didn't attack the Roman Empire. He did battle with the Evil
Empire of Satan himself.

Jesus didn't tell the Roman government what its budget priorities should
be. Why? Because His agenda was much larger than the agenda of Simon
Zelotes or the Religious Left. His eyes were fixed on eternity. He said,
"My kingdom is not of this world."

The Religious Left has missed the meaning of that statement. Yes, there
is a place for Christian social action -- but that place is in a
personal lifestyle of generosity and compassion to the poor. Jesus
didn't tell the rich young ruler to become a political activist and
affect public policy. He said, "Go, sell your possessions and give to
the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

It's true, there's poverty in America, and some of the poor can't lift
themselves out of poverty without help. Some are physically or socially
disadvantaged. Some are down on their luck. They need and deserve
Christian compassion and the good news of the gospel.

But a huge number of people receiving government assistance are
substance abusers, welfare cheats, or chronically lazy. Doesn't the
Bible tell us, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2
Thessalonians 3:10)? Why must the "makers" of society support the
"takers" of society? That's not compassion. That's theft. Wouldn't it be
more compassionate to encourage the takers to develop self-respect by
becoming productive citizens?

Would Jesus endorse government policies that encourage and enable
addiction, indolence, and welfare fraud? Certainly not. The Religious
Left should read His parables, especially the Parable of the Talents
(Matthew 25:14-30), the Parable of the Vineyards (Matthew 20:1-16), and
the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46). In those parables, Jesus
blesses hard work, personal responsibility, and the freedom to achieve.

Government programs can't separate the truly needy from the welfare
cheats -- but private Christian charities can. Private charities are far
more effective than government at meeting needs, changing lives,
eliminating fraud and waste, and dispensing compassion. Our stance as
Christians should be pro-compassion, not pro-bureaucracy.

The place for compassionate Christian social action is in the church,
and in the lives of individual believers. When the church becomes a
political pressure group, telling the government, "Confiscate more
wealth from those who earned it and give it to those who have not," then
the church has formed an unholy union with the kingdoms of this world.

Income redistribution is not Christianity. It's Marxism -- and mixing
the two only pollutes the Gospel and betrays the Great Commission.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.

Thomas Jefferson

I can't stand establishment Republicans but even those corrupt politicians have NOTHING to do with all those cities. The cities, including my own are firmly under progressive Democrat control, there cannot be any denying this fact. By denying this means nothing will change because you cannot accept reality and continue in your state of normal bias. The reality is this, you are being programmed to accept your own enslavement but first you must be convinced to surrender your Bill of Rights and submit to the bankers and their corporations. Do not think for one second the Cilnton's, the Bush's and the Obama's are not complicit in the transfer of wealth and power away from the people to themselves! The velocity of wealth and power concentrating on the 1/10 of 1% since 911 is staggering. Study it for yourself!! I also find it interesting while the government prosecuted whistblowers trying to come forward to fight for truth over power, the elites have descended the most sophisticated spying apparatus known to man onto the powerless!

I like you Rumi, I think you can be saved like many who use to be divided and distracted by either Brand A or Brand B. There is no "Brand". There is only "Have's" and "Have Not's". You are being sold lies everyday by the MSM and plutocracy that controls them. It's always about wealth, power and control!

"Those who control the supply of money, will control all governments and its commerce ".

President James Garfield

KEEP JESUS OUT OF YOUR SOCIALISM

From the words of Jesus and the New Testament, ministering to the poor
and the needy among us is the work of Christian individuals and the
church, not the secular government. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord
is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. .
. ." Today's Religious Left wants to change that to, "He has anointed
the federal government to preach good news to the poor."

The Christian gospel is a message of salvation, not a message of income
redistribution and raising our neighbor's taxes. Jesus said that the way
to serve the poor is by giving generously of our own resources. "But
when you give a banquet," He said in Luke 14, "invite the poor, the
crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they
cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the
righteous."

The Religious Left is very generous -- with other people's money. In
fact, I believe the founder of the Religious Left was none other than
Judas Iscariot. When Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed Jesus with
costly perfume just days before the crucifixion, Judas lectured her and
said, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?"

Notice that Judas put on a show of caring for the poor -- even though
the money was Mary's, not his! The motives of Judas, John 12:6 tells us,
were corrupt and self-centered -- and Jesus responded with a stinging
rebuke.

At least one of the Lord's disciples was a "social action Christian" in
the Sojourners mold: Simon Zelotes (Simon the Zealot). Just as
Sojourners president Jim Wallis was once president of the Michigan State
chapter of the militant Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Simon
Zelotes was a young political radical who attached himself to Jesus
because he thought Jesus would lead a revolt against the Roman Empire.

Simon saw Jesus as a political Messiah who would topple the powerful
while lifting up the poor and oppressed. But Jesus was not a political
Messiah. He didn't attack the Roman Empire. He did battle with the Evil
Empire of Satan himself.

Jesus didn't tell the Roman government what its budget priorities should
be. Why? Because His agenda was much larger than the agenda of Simon
Zelotes or the Religious Left. His eyes were fixed on eternity. He said,
"My kingdom is not of this world."

The Religious Left has missed the meaning of that statement. Yes, there
is a place for Christian social action -- but that place is in a
personal lifestyle of generosity and compassion to the poor. Jesus
didn't tell the rich young ruler to become a political activist and
affect public policy. He said, "Go, sell your possessions and give to
the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

It's true, there's poverty in America, and some of the poor can't lift
themselves out of poverty without help. Some are physically or socially
disadvantaged. Some are down on their luck. They need and deserve
Christian compassion and the good news of the gospel.

But a huge number of people receiving government assistance are
substance abusers, welfare cheats, or chronically lazy. Doesn't the
Bible tell us, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2
Thessalonians 3:10)? Why must the "makers" of society support the
"takers" of society? That's not compassion. That's theft. Wouldn't it be
more compassionate to encourage the takers to develop self-respect by
becoming productive citizens?

Would Jesus endorse government policies that encourage and enable
addiction, indolence, and welfare fraud? Certainly not. The Religious
Left should read His parables, especially the Parable of the Talents
(Matthew 25:14-30), the Parable of the Vineyards (Matthew 20:1-16), and
the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46). In those parables, Jesus
blesses hard work, personal responsibility, and the freedom to achieve.

Government programs can't separate the truly needy from the welfare
cheats -- but private Christian charities can. Private charities are far
more effective than government at meeting needs, changing lives,
eliminating fraud and waste, and dispensing compassion. Our stance as
Christians should be pro-compassion, not pro-bureaucracy.

The place for compassionate Christian social action is in the church,
and in the lives of individual believers. When the church becomes a
political pressure group, telling the government, "Confiscate more
wealth from those who earned it and give it to those who have not," then
the church has formed an unholy union with the kingdoms of this world.

Income redistribution is not Christianity. It's Marxism -- and mixing
the two only pollutes the Gospel and betrays the Great Commission.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.

Thomas Jefferson

When US tried Communism [ History of Jamestown: 1607 to 1611 ]
The Himalayan Times ^ | 24 Jan 2005 | Rakesh Wadhwa

Posted on 10/31/2008, 10:15:01 AM by Arthur Wildfire! March

I write this especially for our Maoist brothers. While the US is commonly vilified as the bastion of capitalism, it is little known that the US too has tried communism. It was only when communism failed that property rights and capitalism took hold.

Let us go back into history and see what lessons America learned from its relatively short dalliance with Maoism much before the ‘great leader' himself was born.

The year was 1607. The first 104 settlers had arrived from Europe in Jamestown in the Virginia Tidewater region of the US in May. They found soil which was fertile beyond what they had seen in the lands which they had left. Fruits were abundant. Wild game such as deer and turkey were everywhere. There was no shortage of fish and other seafood. And yet within six months 66 of the original Jamestown, Virginia settlers had died. Only 38 survived.

Another 500 settlers were again sent to settle in Virginia in 1609 and within six months 440 of these too died by starvation and disease. This was called ‘starving time' and one eyewitness described it in English of those times, ‘So great was our famine, that a Savage we slew and buried, the poorer sorte took him up againe and eat him; and so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs.'

How could this be? How could there be such death and starvation amidst so much plenty of meat, fruits, and fish. The fault as the witness said lay not in the ‘barrenness and defect of the Countrie' but in the ‘want of providence, industry and government'.

What caused this lack of ‘industrie'? Were the Virginian settlers lazy and indolent? It could not be. People who were sent there were the chosen ones – the very best of men.

The problem was that all the men who were sent were bonded labourers. They had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support their colony as a whole. This was communism in its purest form. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.

As so frequently happens with present day government policies, the results were the opposite of what was intended. Since hard work was not personally beneficial for the settlers they responded by stopping work.

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

This is what happened in Mao's China and in Soviet Russia on a grand scale. In America a few hundred deaths stopped the communist experiment, in China and Russia, millions had to die before these nations abandoned the principles of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

Jamestown changed course just two years later in 1611 with arrival of the ‘high marshall' Sir Thomas Dale from the UK. He understood the problem, freed the settlers by abrogating communal ownership. Each man received three acres of land and, other than a lump sum tax of 2 ½ barrels of corn, did not have to contribute anything to the common pool. The colony immediately began to prosper. It prospered because each individual directly benefited by his labour and knew that he would also bear the full consequences of any reduction in output. Private ownership and capitalism worked.

Communism doesn't work because it destroys the reward and work nexus. Communism doesn't work because the absence of property rights heralds the end of all incentive to produce. Communism doesn't work because humans do no wish to sacrifice themselves to the common good.

I do not know or care about the political philosophy of the Maoists. I would, though, like to know what their economic policies are going to be. Do they want to take back Nepal to what America experimented with almost 400 years ago? Nepal lags behind the US in economic development, but is it to be put back by four centuries?.

When US tried Communism [ History of Jamestown: 1607 to 1611 ]
The Himalayan Times ^ | 24 Jan 2005 | Rakesh Wadhwa

Posted on 10/31/2008, 10:15:01 AM by Arthur Wildfire! March

I write this especially for our Maoist brothers. While the US is commonly vilified as the bastion of capitalism, it is little known that the US too has tried communism. It was only when communism failed that property rights and capitalism took hold.

Let us go back into history and see what lessons America learned from its relatively short dalliance with Maoism much before the ‘great leader' himself was born.

The year was 1607. The first 104 settlers had arrived from Europe in Jamestown in the Virginia Tidewater region of the US in May. They found soil which was fertile beyond what they had seen in the lands which they had left. Fruits were abundant. Wild game such as deer and turkey were everywhere. There was no shortage of fish and other seafood. And yet within six months 66 of the original Jamestown, Virginia settlers had died. Only 38 survived.

Another 500 settlers were again sent to settle in Virginia in 1609 and within six months 440 of these too died by starvation and disease. This was called ‘starving time' and one eyewitness described it in English of those times, ‘So great was our famine, that a Savage we slew and buried, the poorer sorte took him up againe and eat him; and so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs.'

How could this be? How could there be such death and starvation amidst so much plenty of meat, fruits, and fish. The fault as the witness said lay not in the ‘barrenness and defect of the Countrie' but in the ‘want of providence, industry and government'.

What caused this lack of ‘industrie'? Were the Virginian settlers lazy and indolent? It could not be. People who were sent there were the chosen ones – the very best of men.

The problem was that all the men who were sent were bonded labourers. They had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support their colony as a whole. This was communism in its purest form. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.

As so frequently happens with present day government policies, the results were the opposite of what was intended. Since hard work was not personally beneficial for the settlers they responded by stopping work.

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

This is what happened in Mao's China and in Soviet Russia on a grand scale. In America a few hundred deaths stopped the communist experiment, in China and Russia, millions had to die before these nations abandoned the principles of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

Jamestown changed course just two years later in 1611 with arrival of the ‘high marshall' Sir Thomas Dale from the UK. He understood the problem, freed the settlers by abrogating communal ownership. Each man received three acres of land and, other than a lump sum tax of 2 ½ barrels of corn, did not have to contribute anything to the common pool. The colony immediately began to prosper. It prospered because each individual directly benefited by his labour and knew that he would also bear the full consequences of any reduction in output. Private ownership and capitalism worked.

Communism doesn't work because it destroys the reward and work nexus. Communism doesn't work because the absence of property rights heralds the end of all incentive to produce. Communism doesn't work because humans do no wish to sacrifice themselves to the common good.

I do not know or care about the political philosophy of the Maoists. I would, though, like to know what their economic policies are going to be. Do they want to take back Nepal to what America experimented with almost 400 years ago? Nepal lags behind the US in economic development, but is it to be put back by four centuries?.