Rabbi Aryeh Spero, in his article, "Democrats Still Don't Get That Ol' Time Religion" shows how "blue state values" aren't all that they claim to be:
Ever since the re-election of President Bush and the robust Republican showing, liberals and Democrats have been talking of their need to "court" the religious vote and speak to religious/moral issues. . . .
The National Council of Churches, for example, wishes to promote -- as a religious value -- national health care. Nowhere in the Bible, however, is there any explicit or implied reference to national health insurance.
To be sure, the Bible is the fount for attitudes and activities in behalf of social justice. Liberals, however, confuse socialism with social justice. Yet socialism is not a biblical prescription.
Liberals continue to ascribe to themselves moral superiority based on their adherence to socialism. However, socialism is a political category, not a moral category. . . .
Redistribution of wealth has never been a scriptural paradigm. Only 10 percent of farm products were appropriated -- not 50 percent -- and that went directly to the Levites who forfeited their right to earn a living so as to serve the people in the Temple. It was not an entitlement based on mere citizenship but a payment for services rendered; government employees, if you will.
Gleanings in the field left for the poor, i.e., that which remained after a thorough harvesting, was a form of charity and a display of gratitude to God for supplying a healthy crop. In fact, gleanings were not distributed nor delivered to the poor; the poor had to arise early in the morning to personally collect them. It was the Bible's way of enshrining the work-ethic concept even among those on the receiving end. Nor were grain gleanings open to the national population, rather locals only.
Poverty was partially alleviated through private giving -- charity -- under the one-on-one context of a donor/recipient relationship, not by a faceless national pooling and redistribution, bureaucracy.
Poverty was further relieved by encouraging loans, thereby cultivating the habit of thrift over dependency; and by, as Maimonides wrote, teaching a man a craft in order to make a living and be independent.
Again, the Bible emphasizes not the national but local: "And thou shalt first provide for the poor in your city" -- one-on-one. Perhaps that is why personal charity from individuals in the Red States is greater than that of those in the Blue States peppered by a "it's-the-government's-responsibility" crowd. . . .
No, this is simply warmed-over socialism and faddish liberal dogma masquerading in the garb of the latest tracking poll: religion. It is a politics of religion, not religiosity. To some, it may feel good, but that does not make it Scripture.Posted by Clifton at November 19, 2004 09:38 AM | TrackBack