Taxing other people for public good is not Christianity

    It's been increasingly common in recent years for liberals to suggest that people who don't support lavish government spending aren't good Christians, or even can't be Christians.
    I actually attended a funeral in Oxford back in the 1990s where the pastor of one of Oxford's largest churches stated that he didn't see how anyone could consider themselves to be a Christian and not vote Democratic in the upcoming election. The comment came in reference to the fact that the deceased was a "Yellow-dog Democrat," but it is evidence of just how nutty some members of the Religious Left are.
    If you read the Bible, it's clear that Christ instructs all of us to help the poor, the sick, and to help each other. And Christ did just that in his personal life.
    What I have not been able to find in the Bible is Christ instructing people that it is good to force other people to help the poor, the sick or to help each other. Christ never agitated for forced charity.
    We know that Christ helped the sick and dying. But there were countless millions of sick and dying during Christ's time and he didn't help them all, even though he doubtless could have. Does that make him a bad Christian? (See, by the way, On Borrowed Time to understand the implications of doing away with death).
    We know that Christ could take a few loaves and fish and feed a multitude, which he did not because the people were in need but because he wanted them to stay and listen to his sermon. Yet the fact is that life at the time of Christ was hard and millions were starving. Christ did not feed them, even though he could have.
    Today's liberals would say this makes Christ a "bad Christian." I disagree.
    Let's consider what would have happened if Christ had simply handed out free food to everyone from the time He turned 13 until His crucifixion at 33. This could have been done by having Mana fall in the mornings, just as it did for the children of Israel during their 40 years in the Sinai.
    Yet what would have happened if Christ had done this? We know that in a subsistence society such as existed at that time population explodes when the food supply increases. Assuming a world population of 200 million on Christ's 13th birthday, it's safe to say that population would have increased to 600 million by the time of his death and the cessation of his miracles -- at which point 300 million to 500 million would have starved to death.
    Today's liberals would have berated Christ for being a bad Christian for not just feeding everyone willy-nilly. But as a matter of public policy Christ was right and the liberals are wrong. He was right not to have caused the starvation of hundreds of millions of people, even if it meant making hard choices.
    None of this is to say that welfare programs are good are bad. I think some are good and some are bad. Sometimes the programs are good but the rules are bad. But I support or oppose them on public policy grounds, not because I think being for or against them makes me a good or bad Christian. Likewise, I don't consider others to be good or bad Christians based on their support or opposition to these programs.
    It's not my job to rate the piety of others. But it doesn't make one a good Christian to support the taxation of others to carry out one's Christian duties.
    The fact is that two Christians can have differing opinions about what policies are in the best long-term interests of society. As long as they are sincere, their viewpoints are valid reflections of their Christian faith. They can have opposite views and still be good Christians.
    In the arena of politics and government, decisions ought to be made based on good long-term public policy, not by making baseless charges that one's opponents aren't good "Christians." There is a place for religion in politics, but that place is in one's own heart, not by publicly challenging and denouncing the faith of others.