With
50 states and the United States of America at war against them, the churches
of America should at least recognize who their humanist foes are.
Some
are joining the enemy they should be fighting, not because of a conscious
decision that they can’t beat ’em, but because they don’t
even know who their enemy is.
In
March of 2005, the leaders of five major churches representing almost 20
million Americans begged President Bush not to make budget changes that they
claimed would cut social programs.
The five churches
were
- Presbyterian
Church USA, 2.4 million members,
- United
Methodist Church, 8.6 million members in the U.S.,
- Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, 4.9 million members,
- The
Episcopal Church USA, 2.5 million members, and
- United
Church of Christ, 1.2 million members.
They
did not just tacitly condone the state’s use of force. They positively
approved it.
Their letter argued that works of mercy are
part of our national life and appropriate to the government, not just private
citizens. They argued that faith-based charities are unable to do what the
government can do to stem poverty.
Their
letter made no mention of the theft involved in forcibly extracting wealth
from taxpayers. It made no mention of breaking the commandment not to steal.
Their
letter ignored the corrupting influence of such forced charity upon potential
donors and those who receive. It ignored the waste, inequities,
inefficiencies, and ineffectiveness of legislated wealth transfers. The
churches ignored the rancor and ill-will caused by such injustices, which
sometimes harden the hearts of those forced to give. They ignored the failed
War on Poverty and its offspring and relations.
In
support of government-enforced charity, the churches cited Jesus’ story
of Abraham and Lazarus in Luke 16 in which a rich man who does not respond to
the entreaties of a diseased beggar named Lazarus, ends up in hell while
Lazarus ends up in the bosom of Abraham.
One
moral of the story is clear (it is not the only one). In brief, the rich
should respond to the ills of the poor. (For a full exposition, see Matthew
Henry.) Jesus did not say that the state should make
the rich respond to the poor. And if they were forced to pay, would this
substitute for personal repentance? Of course not.
The
churches pessimistically argued that since they were incapable of softening
the hearts of the rich, the state must make the rich pay the poor. If they
had not abandoned children to state-run schools decades ago, they would have
a greater influence in society today.
These
five churches do not have a principled stance against the state or the evils
it perpetrates. In supporting social programs run by the state, they
strengthen their enemy and they weaken themselves.
How
can they hope to maintain the moral high ground if they approve domestic
social violence in the name of alleviating poverty? How can they hope to
extend their ministries by publicly arguing that they do not have the means
to combat social ills?
Such
pessimism concerning their own abilities combined with affirmation of
governmental force is a wholesale retreat from their missions. They are
abandoning the field of combat to humanists. They are in full retreat on this
front.
On
another front, the Iraq War, all five of these churches (in varying degrees)
have a more favorable record of opposing the state’s violence. One or
another has condemned the war before its inception and during. One or another
has called for withdrawal from Iraq.
Their
anti-war positions did not stop the war or alleviate its horrors. If these
churches had had a principled stance against all of the state’s
coercive and unjust acts, domestic and foreign, wouldn’t their
condemnations of the Iraq War have had a greater moral effect? If all or most
churches in the U.S. had such a principled stance, wouldn’t such wars
be far harder to sell to the public?
Without
a principled position against all of the state’s unjust uses of force,
the churches come across as merely another interest group favoring their
particular goals even if the means used to attain them are condemned by the
God whom they worship. Without holding the high moral ground, they make
themselves less likely to gain converts.
On
October 19, 2006, the State of New York’s highest court rejected an
appeal of eight plaintiffs associated with the Roman Catholic Church and two
plaintiffs associated with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. They
sought exemption from a 2002 law called the "Women’s Health and Wellness
Act."
This
law mandated that employers that provide health insurance for their employees
include certain kinds of coverage such as mammography and bone density tests.
The law also required coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices. Almost
half the states require such coverage.
The
mandated insurance law exempted religious employers. The plaintiffs were
social service organizations affiliated with the churches.
Having
lost this battle, which may go to the Supreme Court, it is but a short step
to require coverage for murder, that is, abortion. Planned Parenthood
supports this and the contraceptive legislation.
If
churches wish to survive as churches, they have no choice but to fight the
state. How can they do this if they look the other way and accept an unjust law
as long as it has an exemption for them? For the laws mandating that
employers provide health insurance are profoundly unjust and should be
resisted in principle.
Moreover,
the economic case against such mandates has been made strongly by many, such
as Rothbard, Herbener, Hoppe, Sennholz, and Steinreich in articles available
at mises.org.
By not
vigorously protesting such a law in the first place on moral grounds, the
plaintiffs find themselves in a weakened position. They are now arguing over
whether or not their social service agencies are part and parcel of their
religious establishments rather than about the propriety of the state’s
wholesale infringements upon religious and other liberty.
If
churches have at any time in the past supported the state’s social
programs or edicts as expedients for resolving social problems, this will
come back to haunt them; for the court decisions partly hinge on various
humanist utilitarian grounds.
For
example, in June of 2006, 22 New York religious leaders from a wide range of
denominations joined 200 others in support of New York legislation called
"Fair Share for Health Care." This is part of an AFL-CIO push
across many states to force companies to pay a higher percent of payroll for
employee health care.
If churches
are so short-sighted as to agree to play ball in the state’s ballpark
by the state’s rules, and even anxiously elbow their way into the park
to sample the goodies, they will have no one to blame but themselves when the
state locks and bolts the exits.
Michael
S. Rozeff
Michael S. Rozeff is a retired Professor of Finance
living in East Amherst, New York. He publishes regularly his ideas and
analysis on www.LewRockwell.com .
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission
to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is
given.
|