The critics of Christ always pretend that we can be neutral about this. It’s not a matter of whether you share Jesus or not. It’s about which god you are representing when you speak…

A news site that self-consciously reports the news from a progressive, liberal perspective has reported on the offensive actions of a lawmaker from Minnesota. While debating an amendment to a bill to close offshore tax loopholes, a Democratic lawmaker asked Representative Abigail Whelan a non-sensical question: “Do you think benefiting people who are hiding money in Liberia is worth raising taxes on your own constituents?”

Here’s the background. The state government is about to pass a tax bill to raise some taxes, and lower other taxes (presumably), but the net effect will probably be to raise tax revenue overall. What government self-consciously reduces the overall tax revenue it receives?

Here’s the Democrat’s argument. The state government has a budget. It’s going to spend money on lots of boondoggles. Some rich men are “hiding” money offshore, which means they aren’t paying state taxes on that money. Should we raise taxes on the middle class to fund these boondoggles, or should the rich men pay for them?

Which would be better?

POORLY WORDED QUESTION

I can understand her frustration. There are lots of problems with that Democrat’s question.

These rich businessmen aren’t “hiding” money if there’s a legitimate law that lets them do it. If it’s a “loophole,” it means it’s not illegal. These are smart men who hire tax attorneys and accounts to make sure the government steals as little of their money as possible.

We should all be so wise. Unfortunately, most of us can’t afford to hire our own tax attorneys and accountants and setup government-backed companies to help us hide our own money. We’re like bleeding swimmers in an ocean of sharks.

Instead of answering the question, she dodged it completely. It’s a foolish question anyway. It’s not even logical. Why is “not raising taxes on anybody” not an option? Why must we assume that we have to raise taxes on somebody? Why not cut the budget instead?

So, she dodged. It was an idiotic question. Instead, she talked about her faith:

“It might be because it’s late and I’m really tired, but I’m going to take this opportunity to share with the body something I have been grappling with over the past several months, and that is, the games that we play here,” she began, leaving the tax haven discussion in the dust. “I just want you to know, Representative Thissen and the [Democratic] caucus — I forgive you, it is okay, because I have an eternal perspective about this.”

“I have an eternal perspective and I want to share that with you and the people listening at home that at the end of the day, when we try to reach an agreement with divided government we win some, we lose some, nobody is really happy, but you know what, happiness and circumstances — not what it’s about,” she continued. “There is actual joy to be found in Jesus Christ, Jesus loves you all. If you would like to get to know him, you’re listening at home, here in this room, please email, call me, would love to talk to you about Jesus, he is the hope of this state and this country.”

The liberal blogs hate this. They also make illogical arguments, just like this one:

That… that didn’t answer the question. Furthermore, it’s completely inappropriate for an elected official to proselytize on the House floor. Christians like her would be fuming if a Muslim or atheist politician dared to do anything even close to what she did.

And then Whelan, along with every other Republican, voted to protect the offshore tax loopholes.

It’s just like Jesus always said: “Blessed are the corporations.”

No, Jesus never said that. But, he did say don’t        steal (Mat. 19:18). He was just quoting the Eighth Commandment. So, any chance a person can take to legally prevent their money from being forcefully confiscated by government bureaucrats, he should take it.

Rich businesses and businessmen are aids to the economy. They innovate. The fewer taxes they have to pay, the more money they have left over for investment, and reinvestment, which keep the economic engine moving. We all benefit from this process. The rich get richer, but then again, so do the poor.

MYTH OF NEUTRALITY

Lastly, the liberals pretend that there is either religious faith or neutrality. We may have our personal faiths, but they should be kept out of the realm of neutral politics. Politicians should write bills based on neutral principles of government and ethics, not something as offensive as divine laws revealed by God in the Bible, we are told.

Taxing rich businessmen to fund special interest boondoggles isn’t “good policy.” It’s a violation of Bible-revealed law: do not steal. That is offensive to Christians. Only humanists believe this is good policy — and Christians who are persuaded by the humanist argument to leave their faith in Sunday school. Humanists believe in no God, so they can make up their own rules of right and wrong.

It is offensive to humanists to think that there is an omniscient God standing over them in judgment. It is offensive to atheists to think that their bad decisions will bring them, and their civilizations, to ruin. They don’t want that truth staring them in the face.

So, they protest. And they try to convince Christians to keep that truth out of their faces, too, especially when they are in church.

Meaning, practicing politics. And in Humanism’s church, it’s sacrilege to tamper with the official sacrament: tax money.