President Barack Obama said today (February 2, 2012) that his Christian faith is a driving force behind his economic policies -- from Wall Street reform to his calls for the wealthy to pay higher taxes -- the Associated Press website reports.
Obama's remarks at today's National Prayer Breakfast -- held at the Washington Hilton's International Ballroom -- were his most explicit account of how his personal religious beliefs factor into his decision-making on the nation's pressing problems.
Speaking to more than 3,000 people at the annual breakfast, Obama said "faith and values" should play as much of a role in tackling the nation's challenges as sound decision-making and smart policies.
He said, for example, that his own call for fairness in the tax code -- in which wealthy Americans would be required to pay more taxes -- is both economically sound and consistent with the teachings of Jesus. In the Bible, Jesus tells His disciples, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
President Obama only invokes his religious beliefs when they are a convenient way to advance bigger government and higher spending. He happily ignores the teachings of his faith when they get in the way of his left wing ideals. Obama had a 100% rating from NARAL when he served in the U.S. Senate, and he wouldn't even support a ban on partial birth abortions. As an Illinois state senator, he was the only one to argue against a bill that would protect babies that were born alive after a failed abortion attempt. This hardly sounds like a man whose policies are guided by his faith.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that Jesus never advocated forcing people to help the poor. Acts of charity are only meaningful when they are personal decisions that are made voluntarily. The government is particularly bad at making these decisions fairly. By its very nature, the government needs to come up with broad rules about what amount is fair for each person to pay and who is deserving of help. The government ends up forcing some people to give more than they can afford, and it ends up giving to many who abuse the system. Also, since government benefits are a guarantee, it creates dependency among those receiving them, which is harmful in the long run. A guaranteed government handout acts as an incentive against working hard in order to become self-sufficient.
Private charities are much more effective at helping people. They only take from those who can afford to give since all giving is voluntary. They can also be more selective about who they help, which means there are fewer people taking advantage of the system. Since help from a private charity isn't guaranteed, it doesn't create any sense of entitlement or guarantee. People who receive help still have a strong incentive to go out and improve their lives. Sure, when giving is 100% voluntary, there will be some people who choose not to help even though they could, but that is a small price to pay for living in a free society. Someday, God will judge each of us for the choices we make throughout our lives. We don't need government trying to force us to be "nice people" as defined by whoever the politicians are in Washington at the time.