How liberal democrat socialists violate the separation of church and state

I was finally able to watch the Presidential Forum at the Saddleback Church, and some of Barack Obama’s responses and the comments that some “Christians” posted on the above blog prompted me to put some serious thought into the issues as he sees them.  Obama seemed to couch his responses in religious, even biblical, terms in an attempt, I guess, to gain a following from the Religious Right, and he was doing so out of context and using the passages incorrectly.  I found that I have to respond.

When asked to pinpoint America’s moral failing, Obama said

“I THINK AMERICA’S GREATEST MORAL FAILURE IN MY LIFETIME HAS BEEN THAT WE STILL DON’T ABIDE BY THAT BASIC PRECEPT IN MATTHEW THAT WHATEVER YOU DO FOR THE LEAST OF MY BROTHERS, YOU DO FOR ME.”

He continued:

“THAT BASIC PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO POVERTY.  IT APPLIES TO RACISM AND SEXISM.  IT APPLIES TO, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING — NOT THINKING ABOUT PROVIDING LADDERS OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS.  I MEAN, THERE IS A PERVASIVE SENSE I THINK THAT THIS COUNTRY IS WEALTHY AND POWERFUL AS WE STILL DON’T SPEND ENOUGH TIME THINKING ABOUT THE LEAST OF THESE —

The first thing that needs to be considered before I can discuss how this concept is wrong is the context of the actual passage that Obama is referring to in the Bible. This passage in Matthew is talking about the final judgments that await all people (righteous and unrighteous).  The king will gather all “nations” and separate the “people one from another” for this judgment.  So, in context, this is a judgment of the moral failures of individuals, not nations.  But let me taking you a quick journey through the Bible on the topic of caring for the poor.

There are a few passages that best summarize caring for the poor as established in the Law for the Israelites.  In Leviticus, land owners were ordered to leave gleanings in their fields for the poor and needy.  In Deuteronomy, the people of Israel were supposed to give generously to those in need, expecting no return.  In Exodus, the courts were not supposed to show partiality in regards to poverty, and in a later passage, the atonement offering was the same regardless of whether a man was rich or poor. In all of these passages, it is very evident that the responsibility of the poor falls on each individual to do as they see fit and to be accountable to the Lord God for what they do.  There was no general tax or social system in place to care for the poor—it was on the conscience of those who had more to provide for those who had less.

In the New Testament, the teachings of Christ and his disciples to the church always included admonitions to take care of the needy.   Once again, such teachings refer to the personal responsibility of the individual and the general body of believers to care for the poor.

This is just a light study, there is more that could be said from a scriptural standpoint, but the point I wish to make in all this is that caring for the “least of these,” as Obama puts it, has nothing to do with a nation or a government.  It is the responsibility of righteous people and the church in general.  It’s an indication of “pure and undefiled religion.”  This is where the separation of church and state comes in.  The sentiment of this separation in its original context was to protect the church from the intrusion of government. This has been blown way out of proportion in today’s government in an attempt to protect government from the intrusion of Christian principles (notice I specify Christian, since the religion of atheism is heavily promoted by the government).  Today, not only is the government making laws that tell a church what they can and can’t do (a blatant and horrible abuse of separation of church and state), but it is intruding on the very responsibilities of the church (the caring for the poor and the widows), even though the church does a much better job with voluntary funds and labor.

Obama implied in his answer about the moral failing of America that programs like welfare and social security are a requirement under Christian principle and that the failure of such programs to solve the problems of racism, sexism, and poverty are a moral failing of the country, but instead these programs actually violate and intrude on the church’s responsibility.  People feel that if they are taxed to take care of the poor that they cannot give to take care of the poor—and yet the funds given freely to responsible charities would be far more effectively used than the funds gathered through taxes.  In other words, it is not the government’s job to redistribute wealth—it is the responsibility of those who have wealth to give responsibly to take care of those who don’t have wealth.  This is the Christian principle that Obama is taking so far out of context.

For those Christians who consider Obama to be right in wanting to establish the government as the hand that feeds the needy and levels the playing field, let me remind you that when a government redistributes wealth, it actually creates more poverty.  Such has been proven by the historical examples of every socialist government in the last century.  Take heart, once the government gets its nose out of the business of social services, the church in all of its many forms will take over and do a much better job.  Americans have always proven themselves over and over to be generous givers to the needy both home and abroad.