I don't see why this 'revolution' is a bad thing, though. I think, in a sense, it is good for students to be taught to be passionate about the inequalities in the world. Especially for those who are Christians and are instructed that true religion is to look after those less fortunate (widows, orphans) and to love those that may not be loved by others, I think it would be good for kids at a young age to understand that affluence should not be looked at as entitlement but as a privilege and see their roles not as self-indulgent capitalists but stewards of gifts that they did not receive as a result of their well doing.In short, I agree with these statements per se. Now, in the context of Bill Ayers, the word "revolution" is scary; it doesn't mean what Christians mean by "revolution," especially considering that Bill Ayers not only bombed government buildings in the Sixties in order to usher in this "revolution,' but declared the day before September 11, 2001, that he wishes they'd bombed more buildings than they did. This man's revolution is an atheistic one, absolutely opposed to God's plan for the world and dedicated to a powerful humanistic government. In fact, this is what modern liberalism is really all about, and I am not being hyperbolic.
I believe we should teach our children to use their gifts, both talents and material wealth, to help others who are less fortunate. We should teach them this at home and in church. Maybe we should even be teaching them these things in school, though I think we should just stick to the three R's. But that's not what this is about. This is about teaching these kids that rich people are evil and poor people are good, that all inequities are caused by the free market (a laughable idea, to those studied in economic history), and that we need more government involvement to solve the problem.
When a politician utters the words "social justice," it's time to pick up the children and run. All that is is a code phrase for more and bigger government. Government initiatives to fight poverty have done nothing but cause more of it; from a pragmatic point of view, such initiatives are beneath worthless. But from a moral point of view, government anti-poverty programs are much, much worse. First, government redistribution means that people are turning for help not to churches or to neighbors, but to government. It means people give less to charity, since the government takes money from their paychecks for charity anyway. Second, and more importantly, it is a fundamental abdication of the church's responsibility in that area. It is the church, not the government, that should be in charge of such things, and as the government has taken over the job of helping the poor, the church has done it less and less. This is a predictable result, and in many ways these programs were originally designed to make sure churches have less influence in people's everyday lives. Lo and behold...
While I have the utmost respect for the motives behind any brother or sister's support of government handout programs, I think that those programs are morally repugnant and ought to be opposed by every member of the body of Christ.
ADDENDUM: I'd also like to speak up for self-indulgent capitalists everywhere. Well, okay, that's sort of a joke, but I think the "self-indulgent capitalist" is more of a trope or a stereotype than a real thing. Americans are often caricaturized as materialistic--although Americans who say this should look at Europe if they want to see materialists--but the truth is that although Americans can get caught up in celebrity hype and the biggest flat-screen TV, we are also a deeply spiritual people. Very few people here raise their children to think that material happiness is all there is. Whatever the prevailing opinion is, the truth is that the times when this country truly had economic freedom were also the times of our greatest religious and spiritual growth. Material wealth is not what stops religious growth; large earthly governments are what stop religious growth.
Posts
