Skip to main content
Report this ad

Government-sanctioned stealing: why do some churches promote it?


One of the most astute economists, professors, and columnists in America today is Walter E. Williams of George Mason University.  Here is a Williams classic quote:

"This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation."  

(From the article "Evil Concealed by Money," November 19, 2008).

Photo above: (Photo by Lavandeira jr - Pool/Getty Images).  Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

Thus, programs such as the government control of healthcare under the 'ObamaCare' law amounts to government-sanctioned stealing.  Such programs depend on the coerced confiscation of money from citizens in order to pay for the benefits of the few.

From time immemorial such a notion has been condemned as morally and ethically reprehensible.  Yet government has a knack for redefining what is good and right and moral.  In essence, the elitists purport that if the government sanctions stealing, then it is not stealing.

No one with a clear sense of right and wrong can affirm such a perverted and distorted concept.

Yet ever since the latter part of the 19th century, churches have increasingly jumped on board the bandwagon with condescending moralizing about the evils of the profit motive, the virtues of the confiscation of the hard-earned wages of the citizens to pay for the freebies of others, and the near-blasphemous assertion that Jesus Himself was a proponent of Marxist principles.

The reason for the church's involvement in this wretchedness is not far to find.  The Progressive Movement, from its inception in the late 1800s, proposed as one of its goals the infiltration of all institutions of society, including the church, in order to accomplish its subversive ends.

And infiltrate the church, they did...with a vengeance.

The movement became known during the late 1800s and early 1900s as 'Christian liberalism.'  Its hallmark 'doctrines' were that the Gospels are not about personal salvation, individual responsibility, or the freedom to make individual choices out of free will, but totally about 'collective salvation,' 'the greater good of society as a whole,' and the coerced participation in collectivist, Marxist programs designed to create 'the kingdom of God on earth.'  Certain factions within the movement, such as 'liberation theology' even go as far as to advocate violence in propagating a Marxist paradigm to destroy 'oppressive capitalism.' 

Some of the worst offenders in promoting a Marxist paradigm in the name of Christianity are Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine, the Reverend Jeremiah 'G.D. America' Wright (Obama's former Pastor), The United Church of Christ (UCC), the Unitarian Universalist Association, and large factions within the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church US (NOT the many conservative Presbyterian churches!), and the Episcopal Church, among others.

The problem is that nothing about the Kingdom of God involves coercion of any kind.  Unless participation is voluntary, then the entire rationale for being involved is rendered null and void.  Individual desire and choice is the key that unlocks the treasures of participation in this 'kingdom.'

But the minions of Christian liberalism, which still exist today in the old 'mainline' Protestant churches in America, have successfully removed any such treasure that results from participating in the Kingdom of God.  After all, if a government program can take care of it, then as an individual I can absolve myself from any personal choice or initiative in helping the poor on my own.  I pay my taxes and my taxes help the poor. That is my contribution.

Such a notion goes against not only the letter but the spirit of the story of the Good Samaritan as told by Jesus.  When the Samaritan man encountered a fellow traveler along the side of the road who had been robbed and beaten nearly to death, his compassionate fellow pilgrim took no thought about any government program that may exist to help him.  The Samaritan portrayed true compassion for the needy.  He immediately came to the man's aid, tended to his wounds, and made him fit for travel to a place for further help.

Not only that, but he went much, much further.  He placed the man on his own beast of burden, took him to a place of care--an inn--and paid out of his own pocket for the man's upkeep and care.  He then proceeded to tell the owner of the inn to continue to care for the wounded man until he was well, and that whatever expense was incurred he himself would repay in full the next time he passed through.

Leftists, especially religious ones, are quick to wax eloquent in their holier-than-thou moralizing about how government is obligated to take money from citizens to help the poor.  Yet there is nothing in the story of the Good Samaritan, told by Jesus Himself, about any such concept whatsoever.  The story is 100% about INDIVIDUAL responsibility to help the poor, not collective responsibility.

Why is this distinction so vastly important?  Collective responsibility depends on government-sanctioned stealing and is therefore oppressive and immoral.  Individual responsibility is matter of personal choice and initiative.

Most of the hard-core Leftists I know wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone in need on a personal basis. Yet they wish to steal my money, and yours, to create a government program to do so, and then attempt to brow-beat us over the head with a guilt-trip if we do not support their 'programs.' 

Thus, when the so-called 'compassionate humanitarians' of the Left, including those involved in 'Christian liberalism,' howl to high heaven about how cold and mean we conservatives are concerning the poor, my message to them is this--the next time you do what the Good Samaritan did, personally, individually tending to a wounded man, paying for his entire medical bill out of your own pocket without expecting ANY 'reimbursement' whatsoever, then and only then will I listen to your incessant drivel about how government needs to steal my money to help the poor.

It is time we called out 'Christian liberalism' for what it is--an evil concept born out of Marxist Progressivism rather than the Gospels.

Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.


  • True Patriot! 5 years ago

    Wait until November when we vote all churches out existence!!!
    Any RINO that votes FOR Churches shall pay in november!!!
    Get Rid of all marxist churches NOW!
    Obummer has let the churches all fall into communist hands and we won't stand for it!!!

  • Spook 5 years ago

    NO, it's not the churches. It's the marxists. Shut all marxists down. Vote them out with a round to the forehead. A knife to the throat. A noose around the neck. Go after their leadership (hea of the snake concept). Purge the gene pool in America.

  • Anthony G. Martin 5 years ago

    True Patriot--That is NOT what I am saying, and you know it. There are PLENTY of conservative churches, many more than the liberal ones, who hold to the truth and deplore government-sanctioned stealing.

  • Joe 5 years ago

    Gotta love how Anthony implicitly endorses the violence of Spook by never deleting his comments. And this in an article calling out the supposedly "incorrect" forms of Christianity.

  • Anthony G. Martin 5 years ago

    Joe--Many of Spook's comment have been deleted, as he will readily tell you. But, as with you and others who come here and sometimes get downright abusive toward me on my own page, I am very lax about deleting comments overall. I will do it when necessary, but I don't like to.

  • Joe 5 years ago

    Well, I dare say I have NEVER said anything nearly as abusive to you as the violence that Spook supports. It is very telling that you say you do not condone violence as a solution to the issues of the day but you let his comments stand without deleting and rebuking them.

  • Urutu 5 years ago

    Spook is just making sure you guys understand that there are guys out here who are determined that the communists will NOT succeed in their destruction of America, taking of our liberties and attempts to usurp our constitution and Republic.

    We're out here. We haven't done anything YET. We're just waiting for the marxists to start the festivities then our wrath will be wrought upon the enemies of Freedom and the U.S. Constitution.

    "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

  • Joe 5 years ago

    You guys are cowards that will NEVER do anything violent "in defense of the Constitution". You know that the second anyone does anything violent, the Tea Party and other right wing extremists instantly start distancing themselves from them. So just give it up and stop trying to look so tough.

  • True Patriot! 5 years ago


  • Anthony G. Martin 5 years ago

    Joe, either you can't read or you are being deliberately argumentative. I SAID MANY OF HIS COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DELETED. More will probably be deleted if they get personally threatening. Since he doesn't know you personally, or your real name, relax. He is making generalized statements about the fact that certain citizens WILL protect this country from Marxists by any means necessary, you know, like Jefferson advocated against tyrants in our own government? Or do you support censuring Jefferson too?

  • PHILesq 5 years ago

    Urutu....Yep, those damn Tea Party people are sooo radical ! They show up at rallies and say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing God Bless America, and have a forum of getting back to the basics of OUR Constitution. Everyone is welcomed...all races, all political persuasions. How could OUR government allow such a radical organization to exist?! What's next ?

  • PHILesq 5 years ago

    Joe....My comment below was intended for you to read....I, like Urutu, took an oath. I don't wear a uniform anymore but the oath remains.

  • Diamondback 4 years ago

    @ Spook and Urutu: HERE, HERE!

  • Paladin 4 years ago

    I'm with Spook, Urutu, Diamondback and PHILesq! HERE, HERE!

  • Scorpion 4 years ago

    "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."


  • SlippindripperIII 4 years ago

    Here, here to Diamondback, Scorpion ...


  • FerdeLance 4 years ago

    I'm still trying to find out if anyone ever determined what happened to the $2 TRILLION that Don Rumsfield announced had come up missing from the Federal Reserve on September 10, 2001. After the morning of 9/11, I've not heard anything else about it. Could it have been provided to foreign forces to prepare for operations within the U.S.? How about all the money from those TARP and STIMULUS bills and such? Where the hell is all that money going and for what?

    At any rate, I'm lining up with Spook, Urutu, Paladin etc.


  • Layininwait 4 years ago

    Just like Obama's administration has indicated to Iran that we will not take violence off the table - e.g. U.S. has plans for strike on Iran just in case - neither do the constitutionalists in this country. We would hope and pray that we can achieve our mission without having to resort to deadly force but that's really up to the marxists (therefore, I'd bet that violence will eventually be required. You know one of Obama's top advisors, Ron Blum (maybe Bloom, not sure) has openly said they "understand political power comes largely from the end of a gun." and the POS head of SEIU, Andy Stern, has said to the effect that "we hope to use the power of persuation but if necessary will use the persuasion of power." Additionally, Anita Dunn has openly praised Mao and how much she adores him and his policies. We may not be able to avoid having to use deadly force for no other reason than to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our liberty.

    "Give me Liberty or give me death!" - Patrick

  • DawgKillaIII 4 years ago

    Long live the Republic!

    Here here.

  • YoteHunterIII 4 years ago

    Here here.


  • PHILesq 4 years ago

    Layininwait....very true but only after permission is granted to us by the Bilderbergs and the G-20 !

  • Rowdy III 4 years ago


    Keep stocking up on ammo and battle rifles folks. I'm afraid we're going to need all we can get. Also, if you're financially able it wouldn't hurt to stock up on rifle primers, powder and bulk bullets etc. even if you personally don't reload. We'll probably have to set up reloading operations as ammo becomes more and more scarce. That's why I prefer using NATO chamberings for my battle weapons even though they're not the "ideal" cartridges.

    Send communism back to hell!


  • Senator Barry Goldwater 4 years ago

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. — Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 (1909-1998)

  • walrus 4 years ago

    Senator Barry Goldwater says:
    "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. — Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 (1909-1998)"

    I think Osama Bin Laden would agree with Goldwater.

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    Uh, Walrus, Osama bin Laden doesn't believe in human liberty.

  • PHILesq 4 years ago

    Anthony.....More and more lately I'm reminded by some of these idiots of the old Lead Zeppelin song "DAZED AND CONFUSED" !

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    Phil--Yep, and that's putting it mildly.

  • Oh well... 4 years ago

    From the comments below, it's obvious that the military needs to institute a training program for enlisted and officers about what it means to "defend the Constitution."

    Far too many here are ready to throw it out because they don't like the results.

  • Barry Howman 4 years ago

    If the "results" are, in fact, usurpation of the Constitutional Republic, then yup, it's time to defend the constitution against domestic enemies like TIDES, SEIU, APOLLO, ACORN, SDS, CPA and those in government who are knowingly, with malice and aforethought, subverting the laws of the land. See, the supreme law of the land (that's the U.S. Constitution for you leftwing numbnuts out there) is not the only law being subverted. The Obama Administration is violating numerous other laws such as picking and choosing which laws they'll enforce and which they won't. Couldn't find that in the U.S. Constitution (grants limited and enumerated powers and stipulates duties of office). You know, "...; he shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed, ...." Found no amendment changing the wording to "...; he shall take Care that the Laws he approves of are...". See the difference.

    @ Oh well: How about you give us all a lesson on your take of defending the Constitution?

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    Barry--I wouldn't expect too much from him based upon other remarks he's made. Revisionists insist their way is 'Constitutional.' They know how to use all the right terminology, the right words, the proper rhetoric, to fool the non-astute into thinking they are all for the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional provisions. But the proof is in the pudding--the measures they support do nothing but trample on the Constitution they claim to defend. This is what we get for allowing Progressivism, Liberalism, 'the living Constitution' nonsense, case law, and court precedent to trump original intent AS DESCRIBED BY THE FOUNDERS THEMSELVES, WHO TOLD US WHAT THEY MEANT BY THE WORDS THEY USED IN THE CONSTITUTION. And the fact that these subversive have crept into the churches, perverting the Gospel, is cause for much alarm.

  • Barry Howman 4 years ago

    It had kinda gotten off the church thing there for a bit huh?
    I don't cotton much to that Collective Salvation crap either. I've asked 3 or 4 progressives lately to justify their claim that Jesus would have been a socialist but have yet to get a response. Maybe one of your light bulbs can brighten things up for us on that.

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    Barry--They take Jesus' words urging individuals to help the poor and needy and then erroneously extrapolate from that a mandate for GOVERNMENT programs funded with tax dollars. A giant leap in 'logic' I know, but this is the faulty mantra.

  • lg 4 years ago

    While I could nitpick details and we would never truly see eye to eye......
    This is absolutely the best article/editorial you have ever written. It is clear, concise and totally on point. You have made a sustainable and consistent argument.

    That's not to say I agree - wouldn't want you to think I had converted.

  • Side Note 4 years ago

    @ Phil
    Led Zeppelin guitarist sued by 70-year-old singer-songwriter for plagiarism of "Dazed and Confused"

    By Steve Newton

    When Led Zeppelin blasted onto the rock scene in 1969 with its self-titled debut album, it was obvious the British hard-rockers owed a huge debt to American blues artists. But who knew they were also playing fast and loose with the material of a relatively unknown folk singer from San Francisco?

    The fantastic zep many times failed to credit songwriters.

  • Karla 4 years ago

    Anyone can tag on the label"Christian" but unless you are blood bought born again and adhere to the principles of the Bible you aren't one. I don't understand why people want to deny Christ and still be called Christians.

  • PHILesq 4 years ago

    As Reagan might have said ...." quote someone who had a degree of intelligence and knew what he was talking about, I give you these words of wisdom" .... "Each state in ratifying the Constitution ,is considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by it's own voluntary act. In this relation, then,the new Constitution will,if established,be a Federal, and not a National Constitution"....James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 39

  • PHILesq 4 years ago

    Side note....thanks for the info....I'm glad to see someone who appreciates the little known facts in this otherwise facade world....and the mighty Led Zep perhaps !

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    lg--Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that.
    I know we disagree strenuously on many issues, but you have always been a worthy opponent who can avoid personal attack while focusing on the issues. For this I am grateful.

  • lg 4 years ago

    I had to think about why some churches believe the way they do.
    Reference the writings of Paul not the first four books of the NT. Paul does so much more than fuel hate against sinners and many just use pieces to justify their positions.

    In establishing the early church Paul consistently promoted the value of the collective - Christians living in community and taking care of each other. All parts of the body are equally important. The BODY is inclusive of all Christians.

    In community we are to care for each other and decently work to achieve reconciliation when there is conflict in that it diminishes the body and brings no glory to God.

    Paul if read in total is not the Bible ammunition that many believe. You have to read whole chunks of Paul's works to get the entire point of the letters.

    Paul's letters repeatedly promote the value of the collective body of Christ.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are indeed concerned with individual and personal salvation.

    Read on.....

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    lg--The problem, though, is when Christians assume that directives for the 'collective body of Christ' are prescriptions for government programs. There is nothing in those letters of Paul that remotely suggests any support for, or even an ability to conceptualize, a government program. That misses the point entirely. The body of Christ operates by a set of values, TOTALLY VOLUNTARY, that are Church-specific. But Leftists, although they claim to adhere to 'separation of church and state,' will insist that Paul's directives should apply to the state. A gross contradiction...

  • walrus 4 years ago

    Anthony G. Martin says:
    "...There is nothing in those letters of Paul that remotely suggests any support for, or even an ability to conceptualize, a government program..."

    you don't know your world history...most empires had a system of government programs to keep the "pax romana"...(the governed expected certain things from the overlords in exchange for peace)...government programs have been around since written fact, there have been very fews governments without government programs (they didn't last too long)...the longest lasting empires ALL lasted long BECAUSE of their government a history book when you get a chance.

  • Prodigalman 4 years ago

    The word lg continues to omit is "voluntarily" - e.g. we are expected to "voluntarily" care for each other. The government is NOT a party to our individual duties of compassion etc. Jesus would not agree that the government or even the church should TAKE (aka STEAL) from some against their will to provide for others. Christians should GIVE to the church/christian community for the benefit of the whole. Key words: Give and Voluntarily. See the difference?

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    Walrus--do you stay drunk or are you really that dumb? I never said a word about government in general...the context of my words here, as any intelligent person can see, is that government SOCIAL PROGRAMS FOR THE POOR were non-existent in the Roman Empire.

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    Prodigal--You hit the nail on the head! Good point!

  • JR Bailey Casper Public Policy Examiner 4 years ago

    My dear Mollusk Molester,

    "Pax Romana" had to do with the Public Corn Dole?

    Please lay off the drugs: meth, coke, horse, ludes, whatever it is, PLEASE stop destroying what few active brain cells you may have in your mostly empty head!

    "Pax Romana" the "Roman Peace" had NOTHING whatsoever to do with handing out free grain to either buy votes or keep the Plebs from murdering wayward merchants or the lesser aristocracy!

    "Pax Romana" had EVERYTHING with which to do concerning a Gladius Iberii, Crosses, and Hard Core Legionaires!!!!!

    The Roman Peace was kept in this manner:

    When Berber and Bedouin thugs in North Africa kept robbing Romans and those under Roman control, the Romans took to the field against them and along 100 MILES of the road which they used to rob and murder folks, the Romans crucified most of them!

    After that little show of "Pax Romana", no more robbing and murdering along the road.

    Look it up, it's interesting reading.


  • JR Bailey Casper Public Policy Examiner 4 years ago

    Mollusk Molester cont,

    Further, Caesar's (THE Caesar, Julius) conquest of Gaul (all the way up to what we would call Belgium, though his troops DID make it to the Southern part of England at one point. London was a Roman founded town.) and the Iberian Peninsula was part and parcel of "Pax Romana"

    You're letting your Social Progressive looniness get the best of you again Double M!!!

    Da Po Folk in Rome didn't have WIC, or another of the other lunatic 167 CURRENT Welfare Programs in place!

    The Public Corn Dole was paid for more often than not, by rich Senators trying to buy votes for tribunes, consuls, etc. There were some consuls trying to keep the Plebs quiet and happy for the next round of tribunate voting, for political clients, family, and close friends, so the Good Ole Boy Network would carry on!

    Wake up Double M and put down the Bong!


  • The Bible 4 years ago

    "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24

  • John Redman 4 years ago

    "Thus, when the so-called 'compassionate humanitarians' of the Left, including those involved in 'Christian liberalism,' howl to high heaven about how cold and mean we conservatives are concerning the poor, my message to them is this--the next time you do what the Good Samaritan did, personally, individually tending to a wounded man, paying for his entire medical bill out of your own pocket without expecting ANY 'reimbursement' whatsoever, then and only then will I listen to your incessant drivel about how government needs to steal my money to help the poor."

    I did precisely that in the past involving a young lady who was hit by a drink driver and left in the road, so you can come down off your high horse, drop your arrogant "guardian" lectures & mindless hate, and start putting your own money where your mouth is Anthony...

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    Redman--Congratulations! Bravo! Glad to see you admit Jesus was referring to voluntary individual action and not a government program.

    Oh, and by the way, why would you think that I don't 'put my money where my mouth is'?

  • Anthony G. Martin 4 years ago

    To those who just got their comments deleted--I am not obligated to allow anyone you wish to say here on this forum just because I believe in free speech. If you want to bash me personally or engage in false attacks, get your own damn site or blog and have at it. But it WILL not be allowed here. That IN NO WAY infringes on your right to free speech. You have plenty of avenues by which to make your views known. But here you will go by my rules or you will get deleted.


Report this ad