Michael Gerson at the Washington Times seems apoplectic over an answer Fred Thompson recently gave that shows, unlike others (like Mike Huckabee), he understands both the Biblical and Constitutional role for charity.
At a campaign stop attended by a CBS reporter in Lady's Island, S.C., Thompson was asked if he, "as a Christian, as a conservative," supported President Bush's global AIDS initiative. "Christ didn't tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it," Thompson responded. "The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other."
Gerson opines:
Thompson's argument reflects an anti-government extremism, which I am sure his defenders would call a belief in limited government. In this case, Thompson is limiting government to a half-full thimble.
If only! Why don't you go back and read the Constitution, Mr. Gerson. Ours is a limited government of enumerated powers, which means, if you missed that day in class or had a liberal teacher who didn't care what it says either, that if an area of responsibility is not specifically written into our Constitution, the government has no legal authority to act in that area.
Thomas Jefferson made this clear when he said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The phenomenon of government charity is a recent one in American history, having come about only in the last 60 years or so.
Before that, charity was handled by individuals, churches and private charities. That is because there was simply no constitutional authority (still isn't) for government to dispense charity. Like James Madison, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. " And to my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended since then to grant such authority to the United States government.
Gerson also makes the highly assumptive statement
Religious groups are essential to fighting AIDS, but they cannot act on a sufficient scale.
Really? Why not? Where is your proof that they cannot? Because government has tried to usurp their role for decades is not proof that they cannot do it, only that they are not currently doing it alone.
Besides, the best and easiest way to stop the spread of AIDS lies not in spending money, but in teaching morality. A born-again change of heart can help people avoid the behaviors that transmit the AIDS virus.
But Gerson goes on to dig himself deeper.
Thompson also dives headfirst into the shallow pool of his own theological knowledge. In his interpretation, Jesus seems to be a libertarian activist who taught that compassion is an exclusively private virtue.
Gerson should go look in the mirror if he wants to see an example of a "shallow pool of his own theological knowledge." Can Gerson show me a single passage, a single verse, where Jesus advocated that the government dole out compassion? Can he find some where Jesus told PEOPLE to help those in need?
Gerson continues to dig his theological grave:
This ignores centuries of reflection on the words of the Bible that have led to a nearly universal Christian conviction that government has obligations to help the weak and pursue social justice.
I think Gerson means "nearly universal LIBERAL conviction" here. You won't find anything in the Bible to support government charity and wealth redistribution no matter how long liberals have been "reflecting" on it.
You will find justification in the Bible for the pursuit of social justice, when crimes have been committed against the innocent and when people's God-given rights have been trampled on...but no where in the Bible does it say government should take from one person and give to another.
It is hard to imagine they would have used the teachings of Christ to justify cutting off lifesaving drugs for tens of thousands of African children -- an argument both novel and obscene.
If government was still within its Biblical and Constitutional boundaries in America, there would be no "cutting off" of aid to African children. Any such charity would be coming from private individuals and charities, as it should be.
Continuing on:
In the lifeboat dilemma Thompson proposes, we are asked to throw overboard either an American child with leukemia or an African child with AIDS -- and, by gum, it had better not be the American.
Again, Gerson assumes that if government (presumably American government) does not do it, it will not get done. Why can African nations not help themselves? It's not as if they have no natural resources or lack manpower with which to generate wealth. They do have this little problem with socialism and government corruption which handicaps them, but if we're always willing to throw American tax dollars at African problems, there is no incentive to fix that problem in Africa, now is there?
Onward with Gerson's myopic vision of government "compassion:"
What of the more than 1.4 million men, women and children who have received treatment with the help of Bush's AIDS initiative? According to Thompson, they are not a priority. The 800,000 HIV-positive pregnant women who have gotten treatment to prevent transmission to their children? Not a priority. The care of nearly 3 million orphans? Not a priority.
What? I thought Bush was killing Africans because he was unwilling to spend a penny to help? That's what you'd have to conclude from all the wailing and caterwauling from the Left that Bush isn't spending enough on AIDS, and specifically AIDS in Africa. Which, incidentally, is a moral problem since sex outside of marriage is the primary cause of infection, and moral problems are exactly what the church was commissioned to deal with.
One more parting shot at Thompson, as if Gerson hasn't done enough by this point to paint this evil conservative as more despicable and uncaring than Stalin:
Support for the fight against AIDS is not a matter of being a "Christian" or a "conservative" -- or a liberal or a Buddhist. It is an expression of compassion and empathy, which also reflects a serious conception of America's role in the world.
Americans are a giving people, as a number of philanthropy reports show. According to Philanthropy News Digest, Americans gave $3.16 billion to relief efforts for the 2004 Asian tsunami. And according to the Non-profit Times, Americans gave nearly $250 billion total in charity in 2004. And remember, too, that this is during a time when ever American knows that his government will shell out billions of his taxpayer dollars to charity every year without his consent.
Imagine what philanthropic giving might be if private individuals and organizations knew that their wallets weren't going to be unconstitutionally lightened for this purpose by their government, and the sole responsibility for charity was once again theirs?
Contrary to Gerson's "perfect world," our government was designed (and still is designed) to base our laws on the United States Constitution, the ultimate law of our country. Our nation was NOT designed to have our laws based on whim or popular sentiment.
How refreshing that Fred Thompson seems to understand this truth! I think I know why my second choice for president, after Duncan Hunter, would be.
1 comments:
I'm with Fred.
Post a Comment