Democratic Party continues to be roiled over ever-increasing reports of
campaign mischief and unethical acts by the Clinton cabal. One of the most recent being Donna Brazile’s
(ex-Democratic National Committee Chair) allegations that Hillary basically stole
the primary election from Bernie Sanders. If true, the real election in 2016
maybe should have been between Trump and Sanders.
beyond the cacophony of corruption charges against Clinton, the interesting
thing here is the fact that America may have elected a dyed-in-the wool
socialist for a major party’s Presidential candidate, had Hillary been able to
run an honest race. This is a remarkable event in the U.S., until recently
considered to be a basically Christian country.
possible that a 100% certifiable socialist could almost cinch the Presidential
nomination? And, this is in a country
where there is still a plurality of Christians – meaning many Christians must
have supported him?
understandable that non-Christians would be uneducable, not able to learn from
the innumerable failed socialist attempts to ‘manage’ any country’s incredibly
Christians (possessing the mind of Christ, after all) to not only be blind to
the reality of the multiple and manifest socialist fiascos and, to not be
conflicted with the tenants of socialism versus their faith, is somewhat
difficult to account for.
this is because both Christianity and socialism appear similar in that they
both say that they care for the poor, the down-trodden and the dispossessed.
Christianity does encourage charity and alms giving, socialism
institutionalizes the helping of the poor.
the Christian system individuals give expression to the spirit of Christ
indwelling them and gain virtue and merit by their voluntary charitable acts.
under Socialism, the act of aiding the less fortunate is mandated and
consequently there is no free-will act of charity. Hence there can be no merit
or virtue attributed to those acts. They become merely slavish obedience to the
required government statute.
Christianity people have a choice to do good or not. Under Socialism the elite rulers decide which
‘good’ acts everyone must perform and if you don’t obey the state will wield
the sword against you.
the classic mistake of justifying unrighteous means because of the supposed
good end to be achieved. The difference between an individual deciding to act
in a righteous or an unrighteous way or, being forced to act in a ‘righteous’
(according to someone else’s idea) way is a deal-breaker when it comes to the
working out of one’s own salvation.
also the classic case of human government trying to usurp the role of God to
itself. Only it is not quite as nice as God, who gives us freedom - the state
demanding and requiring obedience.
course, the socialist state never carries out their acts of ‘charity’ in a
Christianly way. When the Church administered welfare, relief was granted to
the worthy poor (those willing to work) but withheld from the unworthy poor
(those too lazy to work).
course, most Christians don’t need welfare relief as the faith teaches
responsibility, caring for one’s own, the necessity to not be a burden on
others, etc. This is why ‘salvation and
uplift’ occurs as Christianity is embraced by a new people group.
socialist governments grant welfare to all, regardless of their behavior,
mostly aiding and abetting non-Christians behaving in sinful ways (you can fill
in the gory details with about a nanosecond of thought). And, of course the
supporting of immoral behavior only encourages more of the same.
worldly system such as socialism to destroy such a basic Christian tenet as
charity being within the free-will sphere, places it outside of the possibility
of Christian support.
Christians who vote for socialists ignoring Church teachings or, is the Church
negligent in teaching their flock how to relate Biblical doctrine to
By Terry Applegate