Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Ebenezer Scrooge: A miser, not a crook



Ebenezer Scrooge A miser not a crook

Marley was dead, to begin with. But worst of all, he was in chains.

We all know the story of the parsimonious Scrooge. His name and his “humbug!” have become synonymous with selfishness, greed, and the vitriol of the cheerless soul. Prior to his miraculous rebirth, Ebenezer Scrooge was not a good man. He was cold, resentful, and unpleasant.

But in one thing, Scrooge was absolutely right: his money was his alone, and no one else had any right to it.

Scrooge’s clerk, Bob Cratchit, had a right to his wages only insofar as he had entered into a contractual agreement with Scrooge, who had promised to provide them subject to Cratchit’s labor. By their conversation, it appears that paid holiday for December 25th was not technically part of the agreement, which is why Cratchit had no right to demand it, merely submitting, “If quite convenient, sir.”

Scrooge obviously decided to grant Cratchit the holiday anyway, and while this hardly qualifies as an act of laudable compassion, it is essential that we distinguish what is right, and what is his right. Scrooge had every legal and natural right to demand Cratchit’s fulfillment of contractual labor by requiring his unnecessary presence on Christmas. But as we all know, including miserly Scrooge, he would have been morally wrong to do so.

Two things can be true at once. Scrooge was in danger of Marley’s fate, but he was well out of reach of the prisons he so eagerly sponsored. Scrooge was wrong, but within his rights.

I’m not a fan of the line that Leftists only seek to subsidize the poor and needy in order to buy their votes. This is almost certainly true at the highest levels, but among the grassroots, I believe in the sincerity of the my compatriots to the Left, misguided though their good intentions may be.

Most people, whether religious or simply conscience-driven, understand the essential moral duty of the haves to give to the have-nots. This is why, unsurprisingly, religious people are far more likely to give to charity, some estimates suggesting that “faith motivates as much as 75 percent of all charity in the United States.”

What I fail to understand, though, is the leap that those on the Left make from “we have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of others,” to “it is the government’s job to force you to provide for the welfare of others.” I’ve asked many of my Left-leaning friends this question, yet none has given me a logical answer. At most, the sentiment resembles, “Because we need to help them.” But that’s not what I asked. Of course “we need” to help those around us, but only in a moral sense — how does “we” become “the government” and “need” transform into a legal obligation?

As charity is defined in scripture as “the pure love of Christ,” one can hardly discuss charitable giving without invoking He who gave everything for us. Despite what some may tell you, His command to “render therefore unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s” is not an endorsement of high taxes or of despotic rulers, any more than His insistence that His “kingdom is not of this world” should be interpreted as a call to abolish all earthly governments and establish a global Christian theocracy. In truth, Christ advocated for compliance with the law, both temporal and spiritual, but He never suggested the compulsion of law, neither temporal nor spiritual.

As my friend Dalane England once said, the purpose of charity is to change us, to make us more like our Father in Heaven. This effect of charity cannot be accomplished at the point of gun.

Make no mistake, any government action must ultimately be enforced at gunpoint. Just try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes before a government official pulls out a gun (note: don’t actually try this). Once the government comes to arrest you, just try resisting (note: never try to resist). At some point, the guns come out. The government is not a charity; it is a giant gun-pointing machine.

And charity at the point of gun is not compassion; it is compulsion.

If good-hearted Leftists want to give more of their own money either to charity or to the government, they have every right to do so. But to compel sacrifice in the name of supposed morality is a breach of at least three of the Ten Commandments: it turns a duty to God into a duty to government, replacing God with government in violation of the first; stealing someone else’s money at gunpoint is a clear violation of the eighth; and the obsession with the property of others and how it can benefit your agenda is a flagrant dismissal of the tenth.

Men and women like the unrepentant Ebenezer Scrooge have rightly formed a “ponderous chain,” but they should not fear the shackles of a man-made cell. Their bondage is to a higher power, or in this case a much lower one, and they must answer only to God for their neglect of the downtrodden.

That is the lesson of Dickens’s classic. That is the reason why Scrooge sought a personal transformation of his soul. And that is the kind of reformation we need if we want to incite greater charity and compassionate care.

Government does not make men more compassionate. Government only makes us more spiteful, more suspicious, more secluded.

If anything, government makes us more like Scrooge.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Culture and Religion

Marco Rubio whips out Bible verse that goes after the Florida recount debacle



Marco Rubio whips out Bible verse that goes after the Florida recount debacle

There are two prevailing opinions pertaining to the Florida election and subsequent recounts. Democrats generally feel like it’s good to “count every ballot” until they win, even if that means “finding” more ballots to add to their candidates’ tallies. Republicans have been fighting against the recounts despite that play coming across ingenuously to voters on both sides.

We should want every valid vote counted. The operative word there is “valid.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a Catholic, Tweeted a Bible verse that seemed apropos to the current debacle in Florida.

One might even say this draws in one of the favorite punching bags for Republicans, former presidential candidate “Crooked” Hillary Clinton. That wasn’t the intent, I’m sure, but it’s always fun to laugh at Hillary.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

3 reasons President Trump should offer Asia Bibi asylum



3 reasons President Trump should offer Asia Bibi asylum

There are certain political moves that can be considered “no-brainers” for anyone in Washington DC. Offering persecuted Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi asylum is one of them.

The drawbacks of doing so are few but potent. It would enrage hardline Muslims in the United States who may go after Bibi and her family, but that’s a risk she’ll face anywhere she goes. It would put US citizens and military personnel at greater risk than they already are when traveling abroad, especially in Muslim majority nations like Pakistan. Lastly, it would spark negative press against the President who would ask whether or not he would do the same for a Muslim in a similar circumstance.

All of those negatives are mitigated by three important positives.

  1. It goes against the bigotry narrative. Don’t get me wrong. Mainstream media and leftists will still try to paint the act of offering asylum to a persecuted Pakistani family as racist because she’s Christian. Thankfully, most Americans are smart enough to see through that false narrative.
  2. Pakistan won’t mind. If anything, their preference would be for America, which is already evil in the eyes of most hardline Islamic Pakistanis, to accept a burden that will only perpetuate a narrative that already exists.
  3. It’s the right thing to do. Any time the President of the United States can do the right thing, he should. Lately, there just haven’t been many opportunities to do so.

Every day that passes brings Asia Bibi and her family closer to the dangers that are closing in on them in Pakistan. They need to be taken in as soon as possible. Italy, Germany, and even Canada have offered to step up. The United States needs to do the same.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Why does the Left have the same agenda after they turned socialist?




Why does the Left have the same agenda after they turned socialist

What does it say about the Left when they admitted to the truth, but kept the same ideas?

There was a time when the nation’s Left vehemently denied being socialist. No one was supposed to state the obvious truth that their agenda bore a striking resemblance to communist ideas from ancient Greece. Nor were they to be compared to that expressed 500 years ago in Sir Thomas More’s work ‘Utopia’ [Published in 1516]

Even when it was obvious with admitted socialist Senator Bernie Sanders agreeing with the Democrats in most respects, the Leftists still denied reality. Such is the case that, lies, deception and denial are part and parcel of their usual tactics. They still persist in denying that they incessantly demanding gun confiscation, while demanding gun confiscation.

The Left’s miraculous transformation to the obvious.

Then a few years ago something truly miraculous took place, some polling data showed that those who were unfamiliar with the oppression and mass murder that is endemic to socialism began to warm up to it’s promise. By ‘warm up’ we mean that some fell for the prospect of free health care, free college, free housing, free money, etc. Never mind that those promises were as worthless as Obama’s oft repeated lie that one could keep your health plan.

Suddenly Bernie Sanders became a ‘rock star’, followed by a cascade of newly minted socialists. What once was verboten to admit became the in thing to be an up and coming communist. Almost overnight, Democrats of all stripes became admitting what has been obvious for decades, that they were Reds through and through. Yes, red is the true colour of the socialist-Left, but that story of yet again another deception will have to wait for another discussion.

Nothing changed in the Left’s national agenda, why?

Strangely enough, aside from a few cosmetic items, the nation’s Left has the same policy ideas they had before they admitted the obvious. Back when she was First Lady, Hillary Clinton spearheaded a drive for nationally socialized health care. This is now one of the Left’s biggest vote-buying schemes, and socialism’s biggest goodies. They can admit to its collectivist in nature now, but they denied it previously.

Back when they were trying to sell the disaster soon to be known as Obamacare, they had to avoid bringing up the topic of the term ‘redistributing wealth’ a staple of socialism if there ever was one. Such would also have to be the case with their promises of ‘free healthcare for all’ since money doesn’t grow on trees.

Liberty Control is the last of our examples being a vestige of every socialist regime. The collectivist ideologies have to rely on force to redistribute wealth as well as suppress any opposition when the glorious promises cannot be fulfilled. They can’t very well do this with an armed citizenry, thus one of their highest priorities is to grab those guns. The Left has been on this same little quest for years, incrementally edging closer and closer to their ‘firearms–free’ nirvana.

The Takeaway.

It should be patently obvious why the Left’s national agenda never changed from when they denied being socialists to admitting the truth of the matter. They were dyed in the wool socialists all along, they just couldn’t be honest about it, as is the case with everything else they do.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report