1 Samuel 8

In its denial of conscientious tax resistance, the muddled legal opinion cited in the previous post contains this pivotal statement:

Otherwise, everyone who disagrees with government policies and the expenditure of public monies in furtherance of those policies would be entitled to abandon their obligation to bear their proportionate share of the national debt while continuing to receive no-cost public benefits such as Medicare.

While this reasoning is rather infantile, there is something in its logic for us to be wary of. In his entire statement, Justice Robertson never questions the no-cost public benefits; their necessity is a foregone conclusion. From there he reasons that we ought to be humble, grateful and compliant taxpayers before such governmental largesse and beneficence. The lesson for us is this: The Socialist road - and government aid is Socialist - may lead inexorably to a deadly and tyrannical end.

For example, a frequent complaint from pro-aborts is that they don't want to be burdened with supporting more welfare babies. Better that the taxpayer pay for their murder than to pay for their expensive little lives. Given a Socialist premise, their dour pessimism and murderous sympathies contain a certain sad logic. In sharp contrast, pro-lifers want to be more generous toward both mother and child, and see the new baby as a priceless resource, not a burden. But if both camps accept without challenge that the government (i.e. taxpayers) must fund and control the expenditures, it will just be a tug-o-war over money.

Or take the recent saccharin eulogies for the late Edward Kennedy coming from the mouths and pens of Christian leaders. After all, the good Senator worked hard to open the public spigot and fill the public trough. Yes, there was his unfortunate blindness toward the pre-born, but generally, he helped poor people, and surely that is the Christian thing to do, right? It's a balancing act - some good, some not so good. But consider that government aid programs and tax-funded abortion most usually have the same champions. Perhaps this is no anomaly; perhaps it's not a balancing act at all, but two threads in the same ungodly tapestry.

The confusion for Christians may begin in equating government programs with Christian charity. Rather than the Church or individual Christians giving from their own pockets, the deep pockets of government are tapped. This is so much neater, and seems so generous. The docile Christian taxpayer can now excuse his share in tax-funded abortion by noting that his taxes also help the poor. It's the balancing act again. How neat.

When the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch.

It's also neater for the recipient of government aid, who needn't humble himself before his neighbor. In the process, he, too becomes docile toward the government, afraid to challenge the hand that gives.

Ascribing such paternalistic power to the state is not a good thing, even when the results seem to be beneficial. Looking to the state to meet our needs, we become its slave. The state becomes our master, perhaps even our god. But when the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch. Or, at best, an incompetent god. The state that feeds you will eventually exhaust its food supply and starve you. The state that provides medical care will end up taking your life. The state that cares for you will soon ask for your soul. And will you, grown wan and dependent, acquiesce?