This Is How He Rolls

As stated before, because of his hip/leg condition, Coen is still not able to walk consistently. He's taking a few steps at a time now, but it becomes very painful for him. So, about a month ago, we started taking his "walker" with us when we'd go out anywhere. He loves it and cruises around like a crazy man. Here's a picture tribute to our little man on the move.

At the Austin Greek Festival:
Trick or Treating:

On the Farm:
A complete set of pictures here.

Election's Eve

As we face the "day of reckoning" tomorrow at the end of this Presidential Campaign season, this is what I have on my mind:

"The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the new schools of economics in America or England or the appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is one unifying thread running through the intellectual work of these groups -- rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate, the realization that collectivism stifles all the best human impulses." (Ronald Reagan)

Much has been said of "Joe the Plumber" and Obama's quote about "spreading the wealth" and yet it is known that Obama is not interested in freely spreading his own wealth (read here), seeing as he had notably given less than 1% of his income to charity in the years before his presidential push. Why is he encouraging state-regulated (read: forced) redistribution and yet his example is not encouraging of charitable distribution by the individual based on free will? Is there perhaps another motive here other than his stated altruistic desire to help his "brothers and sisters"?

As a Christian, I tithe my earnings to my church. For what purpose? I believe that this is what God has asked of me, so I do it without resentment. As such, I do it of my own free will and choice; it is not imposed by the institution. I choose to be charitable; I am not compelled. What becomes of this money? It is obviously spent towards purposes of the Church in what we believe to be the furthering of God's kingdom (translation: the betterment of God's children in all ways). I realize that to those of other faiths this may seem a bit self-serving. Know that we do not employ paid clergy and a large portion of the money is employed to assist those that we consider to be our "brothers and sisters" who may have less fortunate circumstances (more information here).

Now, on the surface, this may appear to be very similar to some of the redistribution of wealth concepts that Senator Barack Obama is putting forward (concepts that are not new in American politics). The stated intent is the same -- to help the less fortunate. The fundamental difference however is the means of doing so. Again, as a Christian, I support the concept of giving of that which I have been blessed with to assist others. It would be un-Christian to feel otherwise. But, I do not feel that the state is the proper (or most efficient) means of that redistribution.

There is no evidence in the Bible of Christ suggesting that the state be the arbiter of charity or the proper institution for the "redistribution" of any wealth. Instead, Christ taught that we as individuals should step forward, acting on our own free will and choice, to assist the less fortunate around us. Why? First, that act binds us to them. Second, that act changes us as givers. That choice makes us less selfish/self-absorbed. It's this second type of change that is key (and the type of change that we truly both need and can believe in). This is focused on changing the character of the individual; both giver and receiver are edified and the receiver is taught to rise above the present circumstances and better him or herself. When change is compelled by the state, little or no change occurs in the individual, as the individual is not involved in the choice (and all Christian principles are fundamentally rooted in this unobstructed power to choose).

Why do I bother to write about this now? It helps me to "unspin" the rhetorical cobwebs that our politicians can drag us into. I would hope that we would all be interested in helping our fellow man. I would hope that we are not clutching our "precious" dollars close to our chest because of greed. But, I would hope that we are not also asking the state to do something for us (charity) that we should be choosing to do ourselves. Christ teaches us to help in all ways, not just the giving of a check. It's impossible for the state to put its arms around somebody in need.

Remember, by definition, an increase in the power of the state, which occurs as we allow the state to manage an increasing number of functions in our lives, including the distribution of charity and health care, is a step towards totalitarianism. By definition. I'm not saying we're there, but we're taking steps. We can't take our freedoms for granted.