Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Objections

What follows are some of the most common objections to the pro-life view one is likely to hear from defenders of abortion, both in the media and in everyday conversation. It is my hope the pro-life responses underneath will be beneficial to those who are defending the unborn, whether it be via e-mail, Facebook, or face to face. Rather than reinvent the wheel each new conversation, I have found the following points to be especially helpful in simplifying the debate and defending the right to life of unborn human persons, over and against the common objections of the pro-abortion choice position.

It should be noted that the following objections are not the more philosophically sophisticated defenses of abortion one is likely to encounter from those such as Judith Jarvis Thomson or David Boonin. Rather, these are common rhetorical talking points often made by those less informed on the topic but which nevertheless need to be addressed due to their prevalence and sometimes unfortunate effect of leaving pro-lifers speechless. 

Let's Kill Our Apathy, Not Our Kids

(Stand to Reason) by Alan Shlemon

Today marks the 37th year since Roe v. Wade gave the Constitution's right to privacy a new meaning. Abortion remains legal in all 50 states, throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and for virtually any reason.

It's strange, though, that as I speak on abortion in churches, I find many church goers uncomfortable about the subject. They would rather talk about social justice: Human trafficking, poverty, homelessness, and most recently the surge to help Haitians after the devastating earthquake. To be sure, these causes are very important. I care about them and have supported them.

But if what we believe about abortion is true (that it kills an innocent human being), then it becomes an important – if not the most important – social justice issue of our day. There are 3,315 unborn children killed each day.

What upsets me even more is that unlike more trendy social justice issues, Christians are not just apathetic about abortion, some are having abortions. Alan Guttmacher reports that 27% of abortions are committed by Catholics and 43% by Protestants. Christians are killing their own children.

The most dangerous place for a baby to be in America today is resting in her mother’s womb.

READ MORE...

37 Years Since Roe v. Wade

2,973 people died on September 11, 2001, as a result of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. That day will forever live on in infamy in the hearts and minds of Americans.

On the other hand, 3,000 babies are aborted in this country every day, including today, and most people think nothing of it. At least most people don't lose any sleep over it at night. Many Americans even wholeheartedly approve of and support the pro-abortion choice position which has resulted in the loss of 50 million lives since 1973.

Today marks the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Please take the time to pray for the following:

1. Pray for those mothers who are considering abortion. Pray that they will be touched by God's grace and will consider alternative options to abortion, such as adoption. Pray their needs will be met.

2. Pray for those mothers who have had abortions. Pray they will find forgiveness and healing in Christ. Pray they may use their tragic experience as a powerful voice in defense of the unborn.

3. Pray for our government. Pray for our leaders that they would come to their senses and put an end to the abortion holocaust occurring within our own country. Pray they would use the power God has given them to bring glory and honor to His name.

4. Pray for those in this country who still support abortion. Pray they would understand the moral implications of abortion, that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being simply because she is in the way and can't defend herself. Pray they would educate themselves regarding the nature of abortion.

Here are some resources to educate yourself:

Pro-Life Websites:

Abortion Changes You
The Case for Life
Life Training Institute
Stand to Reason Resources

Pro-Life Audio:

Pro-Life Ethics by Scott Klusendorf
A Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf

Pro-Life Books:

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf
Defending Life by Francis Beckwith
Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn
Why Pro-Life? by Randy Alcorn

May God have mercy on our nation in spite of the genocide we support.

Same-Sex Marriage

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Either there’s a natural teleology to marriage or there’s not

Who are you to say?”  That challenge works both ways.  First, if my disapproval isn’t legitimate, then why is my approval legitimate?  If I don’t have the right to judge something wrong (“Who are you to say?”), I certainly don’t have the right to judge it right (“Who am I to say?”).  Second, why is it that I can’t make a moral judgment here, but apparently you can?

The appeal for a change in marriage laws is an attempt to change the moral consensus about homosexuality.

You invite me to make a moral judgment, then you challenge my right to make a judgment when I don’t give the answer you want.  Who am I to judge? You asked for the peoples’ moral opinion by asking for the people to vote on an initiative giving homosexual unions equal status with heterosexual unions.

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?  Because it’s “fair.”  In what sense is the present situation unfair?  Because homosexual relationships don’t get legal/social recognition equal with heterosexual relationships.  You’re right, they don’t, but why is that unfair?  Because those relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships?  But that’s the very thing under dispute.

If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention.  We can define it how we want.  Now, I don’t accept that view, but even if I did, this doesn’t help homosexual marriage.  Society has voted, and they’ve voted it out.  On what grounds do you appeal for a change?  Moral grounds?  You’ve surrendered that opportunity when you claim that there is no right or wrong definition of marriage.  If so, I have no moral obligation to opt for one view over another.   If marriage is merely defined by society, well then, we voted and defined it as one man and one woman.  You asked for a social consensus, you got it. 

Second, if marriage is merely what we define it then what keeps us from expanding the definition of marriage beyond the inclusion of homosexuality to other kinds of relationships?  Can I marry my daughter, or another man and his wife?  Can two men marry the same woman simultaneously?  Believe me, these aren’t outlandish examples.  There are already groups moving for further redefinition if that’s all marriage is.  There is no limit to how marriage might be defined in this view.

The only way a claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal.  But that depends on an objective standard, and that is a concept already jettisoned when society is asked to define marriage as they wish.  If there’s a moral standard of fairness to appeal to, then there’s a moral standard for marriage to appeal to, as well.

Obama Administration OKs First Taxpayer-Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research

(Lifenews.com) by Steven Ertelt

The Obama administration today authorized the first study using embryonic stem cells paid for at taxpayer expense. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama issued an executive order overturning President Bush's limits preventing taxpayers from being forced to pay for the destruction of human life.

Because embryonic stem cells can only be obtained by destroying human life, Bush put limits in place directing taxpayer dollars to adult stem cell research.

That science has already proven to help patients facing more than 100 diseases and adverse medical conditions.

The National Institutes of Health, following Obama's order, approved 13 embryonic stem cell lines for use by researchers conducting studies funded with federal funds.

The lines NIH approved are in use by researchers at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Rockefeller University in New York, according to a Bloomberg News report.

The Associated Press indicates as much as $21 million in taxpayer money could be used by the Obama administration to fund studies using these embryonic stem cell lines.

They were created with private dollars during the Bush administration, showing that Bush's limits did not prevent scientists from moving ahead with their research with private dollars, contrary to the assertions of Obama and other opponents.

The lines were created by destroying days-old unborn children -- human embryos who were supposedly "leftover" at fertility clinics. Adoption agencies have emerged that have allowed parents to adopt these human beings and carry them to term in a pregnancy.

NIH is also reviewing hundreds of other embryonic stem cell lines for federal funding under the guidelines the agency issued to implement Obama's order. The initial round of approval includes 13 batches of embryonic stem cells and NIH said today that it has 96 more batches to review -- with perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars paying for the destructive research.

About 20 of the additional lines will be reviewed on Friday, the agency indicated.

What we are announcing today is just the beginning," NIH official Francis Collins said today.

George Daley of Children's Hospital Boston, submitted 11 of the 13 lines and the other two come from the lab of Ali Brivanlou at Rockefeller University in New York.

In comments about the funding, Daley called the human beings "low-grade" human embryos who were rejected for fertility treatments, and then donated by couples for research.

Richard Doerflinger, of the pro-life office of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, told USA Today the announcement is a "political event, but the science is all moving in the other direction."

He noted how most scientists around the world are moving ahead with iPS cells, or induced pluripotent stem cells, that are adult stem cells reverted through direct reprogramming to an embryonic-like state without the destruction of human life.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

(Acton.org) posted by John Couretas

[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

"Simply Unprecedented" - President Obama and the Gay Rights Movement

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented." Those words were spoken by Joe Salmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, just after President Barack Obama spoke to the group's 13th annual national dinner.

The Human Rights Campaign is one of the leading organizations promoting what it describes as "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights." The group's annual dinner, held Saturday night, featured well-known politicians and entertainers popular in the LGBT community, as well as an appearance by the President of the United States. President Obama's speech was a matter of controversy long before he arrived. Though pledging soon after his election to be what he called a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, the President has frustrated the gay rights community with what they see as inaction and hesitation in dealing with their agenda.

Indeed, the Obama administration has been under sustained pressure from the gay rights community -- a crucial sector of its political support -- and the HRC dinner was seen as an opportunity for the President to reassert his identification with gay supporters. Mr. Obama was the second sitting president to appear at an HRC dinner. President Bill Clinton appeared before the group in 1997.

Addressing the group, President Obama spoke of the obstacles in the way of the agenda hoped for by gay activists. The President told the group that they faced a continuing fight, adding: "I'm here with you in that fight."

In the course of his address the President took credit for a federal hate crimes bill that was passed last week by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. He also pledged to push for an employee non-discrimination bill and fully-inclusive hate crimes legislation.

But the greatest attention was directed at the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars openly-homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. "I will end don't ask don't tell," the President pledged. "That's my commitment to you." Nevertheless, the President did not stipulate any timetable for this action -- a fact noted by his audience.

The President's perceived lack of action -- and his refusal to hold his administration to a timetable for action -- meant that many in the crowd were disappointed. Though his speech was repeatedly interrupted by eager applause, a good many activists complained that his speech was politically expedient. At TIME.com, John Cloud summarized the President's message with these words: "I'm with you. But I can't do much for you."

Nevertheless, in contrast to that reading of the President's comments, others understood Mr. Obama to make a sweeping series of promises. In addition to pledging a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the President also pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

The President said:

And that is why -- that's why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, stipulates a federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protects any state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage legal in another state. The law was passed by huge majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The opposition of the homosexual community to the law has multiplied since the advent of legalized same-sex marriage in a handful of states.

In a significant portion of his address, President Obama spoke of the fact that gay and lesbian concerns "raise a great deal of emotion in this country." He did not counsel the homosexual community to be patient, but he did ask for understanding. He spoke of advances made over the last three decades, but then reflected that "there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open." Furthermore, "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking."

The President's promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would "see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Then he spoke these words:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are "just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this -- to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.

The attendees at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?

Less Religion Means More Government

(Acton.org) by Anthony Bradley

Soviet communism adopted Karl Marx’s teaching that religion was the "opiate of the masses" and launched a campaign of bloody religious persecution. Marx was misguided about the role of religion but years later many communists became aware that turning people away from religious life increases dependence on government to address life’s problems. The history of government coercion that comes from turning from religion to government makes a new study suggesting a national decline in religious life particularly alarming to those concerned about individual freedom.

The American Religious Identification Survey, published by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., reports that we should expect one in five Americans to identify themselves as having no religious commitments by 2030. The study, titled “American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population,” reports that Americans professing no religion, or Nones, have become more mainstream and similar to the general public in marital status, education, racial and ethnic makeup and income. The Nones have increased from 8.1 percent of the U.S. adult population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.

According to the study, 22 percent of American 18 to 29-year-olds now self-identify as Nones. For those promoting dependency on government to handle the challenges of everyday life, as well as those who wish to take advantage of a growing market for morally bankrupt products and services, the news of declining religious life is welcome.

The increase in non-religious identification among younger generations highlights a continued shift away from active participation in one of the key social institutions that shaped this country. It may also come as no surprise, then, that according to the research firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, voters under 30 are more liberal than all other generations. When asked about their ideology, 27 percent of those under 30 identify themselves as liberal, compared to 19 percent of baby boomers, and 17 percent of seniors. Pragmatic utilitarianism, favorable views toward a larger role for government in helping the disadvantaged, and a lack of ethical norms characterize this young segment America’s population.

The most significant difference between the religious and non-religious populations is gender. Whereas 19 percent of American men are Nones only 12 percent of American women are. The gender ratio among Nones is 60 males for every 40 females.

The marketplace and society in general will both reap the consequences of high numbers of male Nones. If more and more men are abandoning the religious communities that have provided solid moral formation for thousands of years, we should not be surprised by an increase in the explosion of demand for morally reprehensible products as well as the family breakdown that follows closely behind. With consciences formed by utility, pragmatism, and sensuality, instead of virtue, we should expect to find a culture with even more women subjected to the dehumanization of strip clubs, more misogynistic rap music, more adultery and divorce, more broken sexuality, more fatherlessness, more corruption in government and business, more individualism, and more loneliness.

Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned in his 1835 reflections on Democracy in America, that the pursuit of liberty without religion hurts society because it “tends to isolate [people] from one another, to concentrate every man's attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification.” In fact, Tocqueville says, “the main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality.” Religion makes us other-regarding.

Historically, religious communities in the United States addressed the needs of local communities in way that were clearly outside the scope of government. For example, as David G. Dalin writes in “The Jewish War on Poverty,” between the 1820s and the Civil War, Jews laid the foundation for many charitable institutions outside the synagogue including a network of orphanages, fraternal lodges, hospitals, retirement homes, settlement houses, free-loan associations, and vocational training schools. These were also normative activities for both Protestant and Catholic religious communities on even a larger scale in communities all over America before Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

The reported decline in religious life is an omen that virtue-driven local charity will decline, the passion to pursue the good will wane, and Americans will look to government to guide, protect, and provide. As we turn our lives over to government control, our capacity for independent thought and action are compromised. The real “opiate of the masses,” it would seem, is not religion but the lack of it.

Perspective on Arnold Signing Homosexual Indoctrination Bills

(SaveCalifornia.com) by Randy Thomasson

Despite the hard work and moral cries of pro-family parents, grandparents and other concerned Californians, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Gay Day” for schoolchildren, into law.

CLICK HERE FOR MILK DOCUMENTATION AND BILL FACTS

This morning, SaveCalifornia.com issued our response to the media (see news release below). Pro-family Californians are appropriately outraged today (see comments on our Facebook). I want to give you perspective and direction.


Thank you for your hard work and prayers to protest “Harvey Milk Gay Day.”

Your phone calls, emails, faxes, and petitions were admirable and pulled off four Democrats in the State Assembly. But sadly, Arnold Schwarzenegger has plugged his ears to parents. In the face of opposition, we must always stand strong for our values and do what we can.


California voters are reaping what they have sowed.

In 2003 when he was first elected, Schwarzenegger was on record supporting giving all the rights of marriage to homosexuals (later he flipped and now supports homosexual “marriage” licenses too); he supported homosexual couples adopting children; and he had posed nude in a homosexual magazine in his body-building years.

A couple years ago, he hired a homosexual activist, Susan Kennedy, as his chief of staff. Now, by signing SB 572 and SB 54, which recognizes out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in clear violation of Prop. 8, Schwarzenegger supports the ENTIRE homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, just like Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom do.


What’s worse? A liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican?

Since they do the same damage to family values, a liberal Republican is worse. Because a liberal Republican dumbs-down pro-family voters with a unbiblical “lesser of two evils” standard, dumbs down conservative talk-show hosts, and dumbs-down the Republican Party. By infiltrating from within, a liberal Republican can do more damage to “his side” than a liberal Democrat. A liberal Democrat in office will actually unite pro-family citizens in opposition and motivate them for the next election. Look at the national picture. If you’re a pro-family citizen who voted for Schwarzenegger, an anti-family-values liberal Republican, please learn from this.


You may want to express your anger by calling a live staffer in Schwarzenegger’s office at 916-445-2841 or at any of his five regional offices.

You should also expose this terrible deed (supported by 68 Democrat lawmakers, 1 Republican named Abel Maldonado, and California’s liberal Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) by posting comments to online news sites and social networking sites, and by calling talk radio shows.


Here is our Oct. 12, 2009 news release:

SaveCalifornia.com Appalled at Signing of ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’

SB 572, opposed by overwhelming majority, signed by “People’s Governor”

Sacramento – SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is appalled that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Day,” into law.

“Harvey Milk* was a sexual predator of teens, an advocate of polygamous relationships, a public liar, and is in no way a good role model for impressionable schoolchildren,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. “Sadly, children in public schools will now have even more in-your-face, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination. This provides the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools.”

“’Harvey Milk Day’ teaches children as young as five years old to admire the life and values and the notorious homosexual activist Harvey Milk” said Thomasson. “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses — everything Harvey Milk supported.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed ‘Harvey Milk Day” last year, he signed it this year. The Governor also previously claimed to oppose same-sex “marriage,” but now supports destroying the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, in court, and by his signing of SB 54, to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in violation of Prop. 8.

For several months, SaveCalifornia.com has been leading parents and grandparents to call, email, fax, and petition Governor Schwarzenegger to veto “Harvey Milk Day.” The clear majority of correspondence to the Governor was opposed to SB 572. As a whole, Californians are 4 to 1 against the notion of statewide day of significance honoring the San Francisco gay activist.


For documentation of Harvey Milk’s values and further analysis of “Harvey Milk Day,” see SaveCalifornia.com’s SB 572 veto request letter.

* Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (1982)

It's High Noon for 'Harvey Milk' Day

(Onenewsnow.com) by Charlie Butts

A final push is under way to defeat legislation in California that would honor a deceased homosexual activist.

The "Harvey Milk Day" bill calls for recognition, in public schools, of the former homosexual San Francisco supervisor who was assassinated in 1978. The measure now sits on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk, and he has until Sunday night to sign or veto it.

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com tells OneNewsNow the skirmish over SB 572 is a war on behalf of children.

"The homosexual activists want to sexually indoctrinate children to believe in their agenda of homosexuality, trans-sexuality, bisexuality," he states bluntly. "They are going against pro-family citizens who in larger numbers are calling the governor and saying veto SB 572, Harvey Milk Gay Day."

And the danger if the bill is signed? "Children would be taught every year that cross dressing, that gay pride parades, that homosexual weddings are good and natural, [and are] something to aspire to," Thomasson laments.

SaveCalifornia.com has launched a final weekend phone blitz to convince the governor to reject the measure. Another California-based group -- Traditional Values Coalition -- is calling on its supporters to do the same.

Is Government Robin Hood?

Given our current economical situation and new presidential administration, the term “redistribution of wealth” has been publicized. This of course is not a new issue. The Governments role in economical issues is a fundamental debate between the two political parties.

But what is the purpose of government form a Biblical worldview? If you're a Christian, that means you seek to understand the world the way God does and you conduct your life according to God's priorities. And if you’re a Christian living a biblical life, then God's purposes for government should be a concern.

In Romans 13:3-4 we read these statements:

"Rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it [authority] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." (NASB)

So, what is the goal of government? The main purpose of government is to exercise justice as the arm of God. It’s for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of those who do right. That's the main purpose, justice. No mention of a money issue.

In 1Timothy 2:2 it states:

"Pray for kings and all who are in authority in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." (NASB)

Why are we to pray for out leaders? So that they will provide an atmosphere of tranquility and quietness, so that we may live in godliness and dignity. There is no mention of money issues here either.

Recently, I saw another image of President Obama depicted to look like Robin Hood. This particular image was shown by protesters to the president’s economical plans.
Others, however, agree with Obama’s notion of using government to redistribute wealth. It’s thought to be an issue of fairness that the government take money from the rich and give to the poor. Just like the heroic Robin Hood.

But what did Robin Hood actually do?

The government had extorted money from the people. The government took it from them through unfair taxation. Robin Hood simply took it back.

The people who had the money were the rich, who were associated with government. These people used the machinery of government for illicit and unjust purposes and made the middle class poor through stealing their money.

Robin Hood stole from the rich and give it back to the people it had been taken from that were now poor. He did not take from the rich and give to the poor. He took from the government who stole it from the middle class, making them poor, and returned it to the rightful owners. This was not leveling the social playing field this was returning money back into the hands of the rightful owners. To make President Obama out like Robin Hood on either side of the argument does not seem to be an accurate parallel.

Scripturally, the purpose of government is actually narrow. But it is clear the goal of government is to do justice, not injustice.

The goal of government is not to redistribute wealth who earned it. In many cases, if not all, government has been illicit in its power to take from people and give it to others. That’s not charity, that's theft and that’s unjust.

When it comes to taking care of the poor I think it's the purpose of the church to help the poor. I also think it's a moral responsibility, if not obligation, for individuals to voluntarily help the poor.

Remember in Acts 5 when the church was sharing all things. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit concerning how much they sold their possession for and died as a result. They were not punished by God because they didn’t give a particular amount of money. They were punished because they lied about what they were giving.

Peter said and interesting thing in verse 4 when confronting Ananias:

“The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away...” (NLT)

We have a moral responsibility to care for the poor and not to be greedy. However, the choice is up to you and the government should not force people to be charitable.

Government is not the answer to these problems. It may be valuable for the government to be involved to some degree. But the answer I believe is in morality and personal responsibility.