Why Socialism and Communism Are Unbiblical

Yesterday President Trump stated at the U.N. General Assembly that “One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It’s the wrecker of nations and the destroyer of societies”.   He also stated that “Socialism and communism are about one thing only: Power for the ruling class”.

In my previous article on his speech, “President Trump Speaks Against the “religious pull” of Globalism”, I stated that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism.

In response to that statement I had a commenter write in making the following statement which ended with a challenge to me:

“Socialism and communism are political ideals, comparable to capitalism, which American Christians seem to collectively elevate. If you are going to say these first two are “denominations” of secular humanism, you must be able to defend capitalism as viewed through the same lens, or your argument is unbalanced. I’m curious to know how you would you back this up?

Yes, I can defend capitalism, not only from a political and economic perspective, but most importantly from a Biblical perspective and that will be the emphasis of this article.

The heart of capitalism is private property rights. In a purely capitalist society, each person retains 100% control of their private property which includes all the money they earn from their ideas, use of their lands or other properties as well as their labors. America was founded on private property rights and capitalism and the Constitution originally banned the concept of income taxes.

The United States government, including the military, was almost completely funded by something Trump is using today to crack down on China – Tariffs (taxes on goods coming in from Foreign countries).

There were incomes taxes during the Civil War and some attempts at income taxes afterwards until the courts ruled income taxes to be a violation of the Constitution.  It was then that President Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the effort to put in a Constitutional amendment for an income tax promising it would only be a 1 percent tax on the very rich.  This resulted in the 16th Amendment being passed in 1913.

Fast forward just a couple of decades and then FDR raised that income tax to 95 percent on the rich to fund his Socialist makeover of America.  JFK lowered the top rate from 90% to 70% and then Reagan did the largest tax rate drop in history lowering the top rate to 28%.

The Bible supports the concept that what a man earns is his and this God given right is found in the 10th commandment:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

The Bible speaks of it being God’s gift to man that he is able to work and then enjoy the fruits of his labor:

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:19 (KJV)

In Matthew 20:15, Jesus when telling the parable of the land owner and his workers and how he paid them for different amounts of work said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

God authorizes the government only to takes pay for the salaries of government officials and the necessary functions of government.

“For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Romans 13:6 (KJV)

And this is also a tenant of capitalism that the government should only take taxes to pay for the services of government officials and things that government should be doing like building roads, bridges, law enforcement and the military.

The Bible also strongly encourages free will giving for the poor and Jesus Christ talked about giving to the poor in the Gospel of Mark:

“For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.”

Mark 14:7 (KJV)

Notice two important concepts though that Christ taught about giving to the poor.  First, Christ said “ye have the poor with you always”, meaning we will never eliminate poverty in this sin cursed world.  Only God can eliminate poverty when he removes sin and makes the world anew.  Secondly, Christ reaffirmed that giving to the poor is to be done based on the free will of the giver when he stated “whensoever ye will”.

The Apostle Paul reaffirmed the concept of free will giving both for the poor as well as giving to support local churches when he made the following statement:

“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

And God builds on this by admonishing those who are rich in this world to be rich in their giving:

“17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.”

1 TImothy 6:17-19 (KJV)

Socialism and Communism trample the God given right of private property.  Communism does it to a greater extent than Socialism in that Communism allows no private property as all property is owned by and distributed by the state.  But Socialism still violates God’s law by having the government come in and seize a man’s private property and then distributing that property to another.

In essence both Communism and Socialism are the legalized theft of private property by government and the policies of these systems effectively nullify  God given private property rights.

God only gave the government power to tax to pay for government officials and the normal functions of government, not for re-distributive purposes.

In God’s design, the poor and those on the lower economic side of the scale are to be cared for by close family or even extended family and only if they don’t have family then they are cared for by the church.

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”

1 Timothy 5:16 (KJV)

Conclusion

There are four ways in God’s order, which is the natural order, that an individual may righteously gain property(including money).

1. By exchanging their direct labor or ideas to others to gain property or by lending out their existing property to others for their use. (Deuteronomy 24:15,1 Timothy 5:18)

2. By receiving such property as the spoils of war. (Deuteronomy 20:14)

3. By receiving an inheritance. (Proverbs 13:22)

4. By receiving a freely given gift. (Hebrews 13:16)

Socialism and Communism violate the natural order and God’s design by forcibly taking one person’s property and then giving it to another which did not earn such property.

And this is why President Trump is right that socialism and communism are “the destroyer of societies”.  They destroy societies for the same reason that feminism destroys marriages, because they violate God’s design of human nature and the rights he has given to mankind.

We’re Not Here Because of Men At All?

According to Elizabeth Warren “we’re not here because of men at all”. This is what she said this last Monday to a roaring crowd of over 20,000 people who came to hear her speak at Washington Square Park in Lower Manhattan.

She even emphasized the word “men” so everyone would know what she meant.

Now those who will try and defend Warren against charges of man-bashing or misandry will say she was just trying to show the accomplishments of a great woman.

Here was her statement in a larger context:

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all. We’re here because of some hard-working women

So, what did one woman — one very persistent woman, backed up by millions of people across this country — get done? Social Security. Unemployment insurance. Abolition of child labor. Minimum wage. The right to join a union. Even the very existence of the weekend”.

Warren was using this area, not far from the site of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory where 146 people, most female immigrants, lost their lives in a fire in 1911 to highlight the life of a woman named Frances Perkins.

Frances Perkins (1880-1965), was a socialist who worked in the woman’s suffrage movement. She witnessed the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire first hand and later went on to become FDR’s labor secretary and the first female cabinet member.  Perkins was indeed the brainchild behind much of FDR’s new deal leading up the drafts for Social Security, minimum wage laws, union laws and child labor laws.

So, what is the problem with what Elizabeth Warren said on Monday?

First, she did not say “we are not here to celebrate famous men, but to celebrate a famous woman”.  That would have been fine.  When she said “We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all. We’re here because of some hard-working women” the “here” she meant was the modern culture and society we live in.  A society that has a 40-hour work week, social security, child labor bans, unions and a minimum wage.

The problem is that while it might sound cool to say “we’re not here because of men at all” the fact is Francis Perkins worked with FDR and without FDR’s larger vision, charisma and political mastery Perkin’s ideas may have never come to past.

So, no Elizabeth Warren – you were there, speaking in our modern social welfare state, because of a woman AND a man, not just because of a woman.

And is that not the case for all us in this life? We live because a man and a woman came together as God designed them to do.

“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord”.

1 Corinthians 11:11 (KJV)

But now that we have established that we are in fact “here” in a modern social welfare state because of both men and women we must ask ourselves another question.  Were the changes that the New Deal brought about a good thing for America?

Was the New Deal Good for America?

In their article “FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression”, Jim Powell and Burton W. Folsom made the following observations of FDR’s New Deal:

“The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, unemployment in the United States had soared to an unprecedented 16.3 percent. In human terms that meant that over eight million Americans who wanted jobs could not find them. In 1939, after almost two full terms of Roosevelt and his New Deal, unemployment had not dropped, but had risen to 17.2 percent. Almost nine and one-half million Americans were unemployed.

On May 6, 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, confirmed the total failure of the New Deal to stop the Great Depression: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!

the National Recovery Administration, which was Roosevelt’s centerpiece, fixed prices, stifled competition, and sometimes made American exports uncompetitive. Also, his banking reforms made many banks more vulnerable to failure by forbidding them to expand and diversify their portfolios. Social Security taxes and minimum-wage laws often triggered unemployment; in fact, they pushed many cash-strapped businesses into bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. The Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers not to produce, raised food prices and kicked thousands of tenant farmers off the land and into unemployment lines in the cities. In some of those cities, the unemployed received almost no federal aid, but in other cities — those with influential Democratic bosses — tax dollars flowed in like water.”

FDR’s agenda was not just bad economic policy, but it was actually an attack on some fundamental principles that America was founded on.  Burton Folsom explains this in his article  “Which Strategy Really Ended the Great Depression?”:

“According to Charles Merriam, vice president of the NRPB, “[I]t should be the declared policy of the United States government, supplementing the work of private agencies as a final guarantor if all else failed, to underwrite full employment for employables. . . .” That idea launched what Merriam and the NRPB dubbed “A New Bill of Rights.” FDR would call it his Economic Bill of Rights. Included was a right to a job “with fair pay and working conditions,” “equal access to education for all, equal access to health and nutrition for all, and wholesome housing conditions for all.”

New Bill of Rights

FDR viewed this Economic Bill of Rights as his tool for guaranteeing employment for veterans (and others) after World War II. But it was more than a mere jobs ploy; it had the potential to transform American society. The first Bill of Rights, which became part of the Constitution, emphasized free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion and assembly. They were freedoms from government interference. The right to speak freely imposes no obligation on anyone else to provide the means of communication. Moreover, others can listen or leave as they see fit.

But a right to a job, a house, or medical care imposes an obligation on others to pay for those things. The NRPB implied that the taxpayers as a group had a duty to provide the revenue to pay for the medical care, the houses, the education, and the jobs that millions of Americans would be demanding if the new bill of rights became law. In practical terms this meant that, say, a polio victim’s right to a wheelchair properly diminished all taxpayers’ rights to keep the income they had earned. In other words, the rights announced in the Economic Bill of Rights contradicted the property rights promised to Americans in their Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.”

A guaranteed income, “equal access to education for all, equal access to health and nutrition for all, and wholesome housing conditions for all” sounds like something we are hearing today from many Democrats whether they deny the “Socialist” label or not.  As the old saying goes “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”.

This ideology is not new.  Its been tried time and time and again and it continues to fail.  It fails because it violates how God has designed human nature and it also fails to take into account how sin corrupts God’s design of human nature.

How the New Deal Hurt American Culture for the Worse

People are told a false narrative today that before the New Deal there was no social safety net when in fact there was.  The social safety net was the one that God designed – which was the family and the church.

The Scriptures tell us that God has declared that it is the family and the church that are to care for the poor and needy. The first level of God’s social safety net is the family.

“4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God…

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

1 Timothy 5: 4 & 8 (KJV)

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”

1 Timothy 5:16 (KJV)

And it is only if a person has no family to help them, that the church should then step in to help the poor.  And then this giving for the poor is to be given of one’s free will, not under compulsion.

“6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 (KJV)

Even in the Old Testament theocracy of Israel where God commanded giving for the poor, there was no such thing as tax collector.  The giving was freely done by individuals to help the poor and needy around them.

And this is one the big divides between Leftists and those who believe in freedom.  In his article “Whatever You May Think of Republicans, Don’t Call Them ‘Stingy’” John Tamny writes:

“Republicans are greedy. They’re “out for themselves” as evidenced by their reflexive support of “tax cuts for the rich.” According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the GOP is the party of “hate.”

Conversely, it’s safe to say that the Democrats are rather charity minded. Figure that their voting habits are invariably informed by compassion for the have nots. Democrats feel, and their intense emotions are deep when it comes to correcting what they see as societal injustices of the economic variety.

Except that such an impression about charity and charitable giving would be incorrect

According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, “Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.” Sullivan was referencing a study published last month in the academic journal, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. The study was a creation of four research professors “who set out to explore how political differences affect charitable giving.” As Sullivan noted in his analysis of the report, the “more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.”

As Arthur Brooks showed in his 2006 book Who Really Cares, U.S. households in the top 10 percent of income accounted for at least a quarter of all money donated, while U.S. households with net worths of over a million dollars were the source of over half of all charitable gifts. Brooks’s study also confirmed what the more recent one did: Republicans give more than Democrats do to charity, and do so at all levels of income.”

In other words, most Leftists, Socialists and Democrats are only generous with other people’s money.  While most Conservatives and Republicans who believe in the God given right of private property, are highly generous with their private property in helping the poor and needy around them through their churches or private charitable organizations.

And this was one of the worst impacts of the New Deal on American culture.  People no longer saw it as their duty to take in their parents or other relatives in their old age. Extended family members no longer saw it as their duty to care for the poor relatives.  And this affected giving and participation in church charitable organizations as well.

This change gave powers and responsibilities that were meant for families and churches to the government and in the process this change weakened both the institutions of the family and church.

No, Socialists Did Not Give Us the Weekend – God did

I just had to chuckle when I read Elizabeth Warren’s statement that Francis Perkins and the New Deal gave us “the Weekend”.  Actually, it was God who gave us the concept of the weekend.

“9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates”

Exodus 20:9-10 (KJV)

Now we know under the New Covenant that we do not have to take our day of rest on Saturday, we can do it on Sunday or even another day of the week.

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”

Colossians 2:16 (KJV)

But the concept of a day of rest, a “weekend” of sorts, was God’s design. And Americans believed in this long before the New Deal. In fact, it was illegal in many parts of the United States to work on Sunday throughout the 18th and 19th centuries and even in the first half of the 20th century.

Conclusion

Elizabeth Warren was flat wrong that society has come to where it has only because of women and not “because of men at all”.  Men have cooperated with and helped women and women have cooperated with and helped men to get us where we are today.  And where we are today is not good thing from God’s perspective.

I would argue that men cooperated with women in many ways that they should not have.  One of the biggest mistakes men cooperated with women on was in voting for woman’s suffrage in 1919 and 1920.  After woman’s suffrage, the New Deal helped to further weaken the place of the family and the church in society.

And just as feminism has proven to be a failure, so too has socialism.  Every time socialism is tried, it fails.  And in the same way that feminism can only exist on the backs of men if they allow it, so too social welfare states can only exist based on the success of capitalism within their nations.

On the subject of child labor laws, I would encourage you to read Jeffery’s Tucker’s article for the Mises Institute entitled “The Trouble With Child Labor Laws” .  And on the subject of Minimum wage laws you should check out this article by Jon Miltimore entitled “The New York Times Explains Why the Minimum Wage Should Be $0.00” .

The Pope calls for Christians to violate God’s first command to mankind

Because of comments that were inappropriately attributed directly to the Pope and not Peter Raven as they should have been I have decided to retract my post as well.

It has been brought my attention that lifesitenews.com has printed this correction of the article I quoted at the begining of this post:
“March 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – On March 3, LifeSite published an article originally titled: “‘Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children,’ claims Vatican academy member.” That article misquoted botanist and environmentalist Peter Raven, who was reported to have said at a Vatican press conference that, “Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children to make the world more sustainable.” After reviewing audio recordings of the press conference, LifeSite has amended the story to accurately reflect Raven’s words.

What he actually said was, “We need at some point to have a limited number of people which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued that you should not have more children than you can bring up properly.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/correction-vatican-academy-member-misquoted-in-story-on-pope-francis

This however does not change my suspicion of this Pope in regard to his alliance with environmentalism.   It would not surprise me if over time he actually did publicly accept the overpopulation myth.  But to date there is no official evidence it.

I still do not agree that the Pope allowed an avid forced abortion promoter to speak and I do believe the overpopulation ideology had a wide audience at this Vatican summit.  Something the Pope should never have allowed.

The American Idol of Equality

The Bible does not support the modern American concept of equality. In fact in some ways American ideas about equality are completely at odds with the Bible. But the unfortunate truth is that over the past century most American Christians have willing laid down their Biblical faith on the altar of their new god – the god of equality.

It is a sad fact that in 2016 more Americans believe in gender equality than believe in God. According to a 2015 Pew survey, 86 percent of Americans believe in God while another Pew survey reveals that 91 percent of Americans believe in advancing the social equality of women.

“Pew Research Center surveys are not the only ones that have found a long-term decline in the overall share of Americans who say they believe in God. For example, 86% of Americans said in a 2014 Gallup poll they believed in God or a universal spirit, down from 96% in 1994 and the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/04/americans-faith-in-god-may-be-eroding/

“…the highest levels of support for gender equality are found in Canada, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Roughly nine-in-ten or more in these countries say gender equality is very important.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/08/strong-global-support-for-gender-equality-especially-among-women/

And it is not just gender equality.  Whether it be income equality, education equality, racial equality, sexual orientation equality, healthcare equality and host of other “equalities” it is undeniable that the American culture as well as the rest of western countries have bowed their knees to the god of equality.

How should Bible believing Christians react to our culture’s emphasis on these various equality ideologies?

When it comes to this issue of equality we have two choices as Christians.

We can let our beliefs about equality dictate our beliefs about the Bible

Sadly many professing Christians in America and around the western world have chosen this first approach to the subject of equality. While their beliefs in equality are absolute – their beliefs in the Bible as God’s perfect and inspired word are not. Any part of the Bible that contradicts with what their god of equality stands for are dismissed as “cultural” or “temporary” for Biblical times only. Others teach a false Gospel that Christ came not just to die on the cross but to bring about social equality.

We can let our beliefs about the Bible dictate our beliefs about equality

Fewer Christians today than at any point in the history of Christendom believe that the Bible stands as the inerrant Word of God. Yes as Bible believing Christians we understand that we are not under the civil laws, sacrificial laws, cleanliness laws, dietary laws and priestly laws that God gave to Israel as theocracy.  But God’s lasting moral law was enforced and strengthened under the new law of Christ in the form of the New Testament.

We believe what the Apostle Paul wrote when he said this about his writings as well as those of the other Apostles:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

I Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

We know that the New Testament stands as the final revelation of God built upon the moral law of the Old Testament.  When accept this fact, then we will accept that the New Testament not only left certain inequalities intact (like slavery) but it also enshrined and reinforced other inequalities such as the social inequality of men and women.  Any honest reading of the New Testament reveals this to be true.

Now that we have established that Bible believing Christians must view the subject of equality through the lenses of the Scriptures we will now look at some hot button areas of equality in American culture today.

What does the Bible say about racial and gender equality?

The Bible teaches that all human beings, men and women and people of all races are equally human.

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

All human beings regardless of their gender or race are equally as human as the first man Adam was and we ought never to regard a person as being less than human because they are a certain gender or race.

The Bible teaches not only the equality of our common humanity but also our spiritual equality as believers in Christ regardless of race, creed or gender:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

Does the Bible support the concept of equal justice before the law?

Yes it does. The Bible teaches that all people are to be treated fairly in the eyes of the law:

“You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.”

Deuteronomy 16:19(NASB)

So if a rich man commits a crime and poor man commits a crime they both should face the same justice. If a man commits a crime or a woman commits a crime they should face they justice.  If a black man commits a crime or white man commits a crime they should face the same justice.

What does the Bible say about income equality?

The Bible talks about workers being paid the wages they agreed to be paid but it does not say workers or people in general must be paid equally.  An employer and an employee agree to a wage.  But that employer does not have pay more than the agreed wage because he pays other employees more.

In one of Christ’s parables he talks about a land owner who needs his fields harvested quickly in Matthew 20:1-15. The land owner goes out into the town looking for workers to agree to work in his field that day.  He starts off early in the morning finding some workers and they agree to work for a denarius which was the typical wage for a 10 hour work for field workers.

But he needed more workers for his fields so throughout the day and even towards the end of the day the land owner kept going out and getting workers.

At the end of the day he paid all his workers the same wage for that day even though some had only worked the last few hours of the day while others had worked all day long.  This was the response of the first workers he hired who agree to their wage of a denarius:

“10 When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’ 13 But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’”

Matthew 20:10-15(NASB)

Some have tried to misinterpret this story as teaching that workers must all be paid the same when clearly that is not the case. This story from Christ is actually a powerful example of the natural private property rights that God has given to mankind. Notice what the landowner says to the workers – “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?”

The landowner by paying the men who worked only an hour the same as those who worked 10 hours was paying his workers unequally.  The men who worked at the end of the day got an entire day’s wages while those who worked all day got the same wage.

As Bible believing Christians we should NOT support “equal pay for equal work” laws as these laws violate the natural private property rights that God has given to man.

A business owner has the right to do what they will with their own property including determining the hourly wages of their employees. If a manager chooses to pay blonde people more money per hour than brown haired people or men more than women that is his right as Christ said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” We may not agree as workers with how our employers decide our wages but at the end of the day if we agreed to that wage we are not to be envious of another person making more money.

This is the complete opposite of how Americans are taught to view their employers.  We have people suing all the time for unequal pay and this is a violation of the private property rights of the owners of these companies.

On the larger issue of income equality Christ said this:

“7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.”

Mark 14:7 (NASB)

Both in the Old and New Testaments we are encouraged to help the poor.  But the fact is that there will ALWAYS be poor people and there will always be rich people and sometimes there will be those in between. But we will never eliminate poverty in this world.

The giving to the poor in the Old and New Testament was always a temporary thing. And in some cases the poor would have to work for their food.   A man’s giving to the poor was commanded by God and enforced by God – not the government of the nation of Israel.  They did not have tax collectors going around assessing people’s land and taking from them and redistributing to the poor. It was PRIVATE charitable giving, not government taxation and redistribution of wealth as we have in America and other western countries.

Also the giving to the poor was never meant to encourage laziness – in fact the Apostle Paul warns against church giving food to people who are able bodied and could work:

“10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

II Thessalonians 3:19 (KJV)

In the New Testament the specific formulas for charity given to Israel as a theocracy are done away with and giving was to be completely based on one’s free will:

“7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

There are many passages throughout the Scriptures that talk about the protection of private property.  In fact in many places in the Old Testament we see laws proscribing remedies for the violation of private property rights. Theft of private property was seen as a much more serious thing than we see it today.

“15 Thou shalt not steal…

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:15-17

Civil government is never granted the right to tax for income redistribution purposes.  To do so is tantamount to legalized theft. The poor are to be supported by private free will charity, not government confiscation of private property for the purposes of trying to bring about income equality.

Socialism and Communism are in direct contradiction with the natural private property rights God has given to man.

So here is the point about income inequality from a Biblical perspective.  The Bible clearly respects private property rights as well as the right of workers to be paid the wage they agreed upon. An owner of a company may pay his workers different wages that they have agreed to and they are not to be envious of what he pays their fellow employees.  The government does have the right to tax but this right should never cancel out a man’s private property rights.

Does the Bible support sexual orientation equality?

The Bible does NOT support the right of gays, lesbians and transgender people to engage in these lifestyles nor does it say that Christians cannot discriminate against these people in offering services to them(like florists, photographers, etc.).

The Bible clearly condemns these types of lifestyles as sinful:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

Does the Bible support healthcare equality?

I would refer you back up to the income inequality section. No the Bible does not require that we offer free healthcare to anyone any more than it requires us to guarantee free food and shelter to all.  Now should people, especially the wealthy donate to hospitals and help take care of the poor? Yes.

“17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good [a]works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.”

I Timothy 6:17-19 (NASB)

But again this should be of their own free will.  It should not be based on government confiscation of property and redistribution of wealth.

Does the Bible support education equality?

Again I would refer you back to the section on income inequality.  We do not have a God given right to other’s people’s money to pay for our education. As believers and followers of the Bible we value education.

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:”

Proverbs 1:5 (KJV)

But let’s be honest that just like equality – education has become an idol in American society.

“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

Ecclesiastes 12:12 (KJV)

We have thousands of young people believing they are entitled to a free college education when they are NOT.  In fact it can be shown that education standards have dropped while education costs have skyrocketed because of this philosophy that everyone must go to college.  Universities and colleges are flooded with people who should not be there. I have two words for you – it is called “skilled trades”.

Does the Bible support equal rights for all human beings?

No it does not.  Now you might say “Wait a minute! You just said in an earlier section that we are to regard all people regardless of race or gender as equally human – doesn’t that mean that if all people are equally human they should have equal rights?” The answer my friends is no.

Now we can grant equal rights in certain areas like we did with race and religion here.  The Bible does not forbid us from granting these types of equality.

But there was nothing unbiblical about the racial and ethnic quotas that the US Government had from 1790 to 1965 when racial and ethnic quotas were outlawed as considerations for allowing immigrants into the United States. A nation has the right to preserve its cultural, racial and ethnic makeup through controlling what persons may immigrate to its country.

But if Americans decided to place restrictions or stop immigration from certain countries as we are considering today because of the war with Islamic radicals this is not an immoral action by Biblical standards.

Now unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights in the area of gender rights Gods has placed firm restrictions on this regardless of what civil governments decide.

While American law may grant women equal rights with men – Biblical law does not.  And unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights God has not left the issue of gender rights open.

Woman are to submit to their fathers and then their husbands when they marry:

“3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.

9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.”

Numbers 30:3-9 (KJV)

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man in the Church

“34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

I Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man in society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

So yes our American society has granted women equal rights with their husbands – but God has not. Another way of putting this is – the American government over the last century as legalized women rebelling against their husbands.

Christian women in America are faced with the same choice that Eve, the first woman, faced in the Garden of Eden:

“1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which theLord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1-4 (KJV)

Will you as a woman take the forbidden fruit? Will you try and be equal with your husband as Eve tried to be equal with God?

Will you take advantage of the sin your government condones and rebel against your husband’s authority or will you resist that temptation and follow God’s law?

Conclusion

While the Bible supports such concepts that all people are equally human and equal justice under the law it does not support the modern American philosophy of equality.

The philosophies of socialism, feminism and humanism which are all children of the philosophy of equality are also in direct contradiction with the Word of God.

We all have a choice to make – will we worship the god of equality or the God of the Bible?

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

Matthew 4:10 (KJV)

See the articles below that are related to this subject of equality:

Biblical Human Rights vs American Human Rights

Does the Bible teach the concept of “Human Property”?

Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible

Swiss reject free income plan

Is actually having to work for a living an old fashioned and outdated idea? About a quarter of the Swiss people think it is. Thankfully about three quarters of the Swiss still have their common sense and voted against this revolutionary proposal on their ballot.

Here is more on this story:

“Conservative Switzerland is the first country to hold a national referendum on an unconditional basic income, but others including Finland are examining similar plans as societies ponder a world where robots replace humans in the workforce.

Olivier, a 26-year-old carpenter who works on construction sites and runs a small business designing and building furniture, said he voted “yes”.

“For me it would be a great opportunity to put my focus on my passion and not go to work just for a living,” he said.”

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/swiss-voters-decide-guaranteed-monthly-income-plan-103534182–business.html

But plans like this are being considered in other European countries. What people do not realize is when you give people a free basic income then you take away all incentives for people in lower income jobs to work.

In many ways President Obama has tried to give a free basic income through expanded food stamp programs and other government assistance programs over his two terms in office.

Food stamp recipients up 42 percent under Obama

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/

There is a simple truth in the world – when you give people free food they will work less or not at all.  That is why it is no coincidence that under Obama we also have one of the lowest workforce participation rates since the Great Depression.

The Bible while encouraging us to help the truly poor and needy does not ever tell us to give unending free government assistance to people.   This concept can be found nowhere in the Scriptures.

This is the Bible’s answer to motivating people to work:

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. ” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

As Christians and as Americans while we must help those who are truly in need we cannot in our trying to do good encourage the sin of laziness.

How the social safety net encourages divorce

woman falling into net

How could things like joint custody, child support, alimony and equal property division cause more divorce? The answer is this – if you make something easier to do, more people will do it.

Take health care for example, our current system often times makes people pay small copays when they go for medical care, and when they don’t feel the cost, they will go the doctor for the smallest reasons increasing crowding of medical facilities and taking away resources from people who truly need critical medical care. But when people are made to pay larger copays, it makes them think twice before they go to the doctor and this reduces overuse and frivolous use of medical facilities.

The same principle applies to divorce. Before the mid 1800’s and throughout most of human history women were considered the property of their husbands, along with their children. In the rare cases that a woman actually did secure a divorce from her husband, she left only with the clothes on her back, not her children, and not any property.

You can imagine that under these circumstances, most women would never leave their husbands for fear of losing their children and becoming destitute.

But in the mid 1800’s as the early women’s rights movements began to arise, women began to be able to actually get custody of their children, and in some cases even secure property and support from their soon to be ex-husbands.

To be sure many people had good intentions in trying to make divorce easier for women. They reasoned that it was in the best interests of the children to keep them with their mother, and that she would need to be financially supported in caring for them.

But until the 1960’s a man or woman would have to prove cause for divorce (most often infidelity or some other serious issue like abuse or abandonment).

Not only did the new no fault divorce laws help to encourage divorce, but the new war on poverty of the 1960’s also helped to encourage divorce. Single mothers could now apply for government assistance to help with their children.

So even if a woman was married to a man of meager means, she could take the child support from him, and then go to the government to make up the difference through food assistance or other programs. These programs only became more and more expansive throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. It was only in the 1990’s when Bill Clinton was forced by a Republican congress to sign welfare reform that some of the expansion was rolled back a bit and halted.

Thanks to President Obama and our Great Recession, many of these welfare reforms have been softened or done away with all together.

The result is a society in which a woman can leave her husband at any time, for no reason and she can take half his property and force him to pay child support or alimony. If he does not make a lot of money, this same woman can depend on our social safety net to make up the difference.

It should come as no surprise then, that today 70% of divorces are filed by women. We have made it easier for them to do, so they do it. Most divorces do not occur because of infidelity or abuse(which would be Biblical reasons for divorce in my opinion), the vast majority(at least 80% or more) of divorces occur over irreconcilable differences like the couple growing apart, career issues, and disagreements about how to spend money.

In western society, the nuclear family is crumbling, and this is in larger part due to the reason that we subsidize divorce, and make it so easy.

As I have said before many times on this blog, feminism and one of its many children, easy divorce, will eventually come to an end one way or the other. It will either end before western culture collapses because people begin to see a direct correlation between the collapse of marriage and the family, and the financial stresses that broken families put on our society(through crime and poverty), or it will end because we run out of money and the governments collapse.

The Socialist Assault on Marriage

RussianAssaultOnMarriage

It is no coincidence that socialists in American have been and continue to assault the institution of marriage. It should not surprise us that most people who support government take overs of business and health care also support gay marriage and oppose traditional marriage, including traditional gender roles.

The destruction of traditional marriage is a very old tenant in the Socialist handbook, just as organized religion is. Socialists want people to have their ultimate allegiance to the state. Loyalty to family, or to God threatens ultimate loyalty to the State. That is why Socialist states find every way they can to marginalize religion, and they encourage “free love” because they know free love ultimately builds dependency upon the state.

Socialists are succeeding in America with their goals. Both church attendance and marriage rates are down. Cohabitation rates are way up.

President Obama has led the Socialist charge since he became President in 2009. He or his justice department have tried to interfere in church hiring practices and he has tried to force Christian businesses and church organizations to pay for abortion coverage.

President Obama’s minions at every level of Government are trying to force gay marriage down the throats of Bible believing Christians. Christians are in fear of losing their businesses or being dragged into court if they refuse to participate in a gay wedding.

Our Socialist President loves creating more and more dependency, he gives out “free” cell phones and has massively expanded food stamp programs which discourage people from finding work.

But it all goes back to an assault on the family, and on traditional marriage, if we continue to lose our fight for traditional marriage and the traditional family unit, our nation will soon crumble.

I pray that all my Christian friends, and even those non-Christians who understand the importance of the traditional family unit, will stand together against this Socialist assault. We need to find candidates that will not be afraid of the word SOCIALIST – that is what President Obama is, that is what Harry Reid is. That is what many democrats are. We need to call it what it is!

We also need Christians and churches to get out of bed with the Socialists! So many Christians think that socialism is a good think because it supposedly helps the poor so they get in bed with the very people who are assaulting the family, God and religious freedom. Christians wake up!!!