Taxing Solutions
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
One of the popular topics of the day involves the concept of paying higher taxes so the government can have more money. No, I'm not running for president; so maybe I can get away with saying this: If individuals and states (except for California) must balance their budgets, why does not the federal government need to do the same thing? If most people have an income of $100,000 per year, it is unlikely that they will spend $200,000,000. But our government does worse without batting an eye. Apparently, it seldom seriously thinks about spending less money; so the only alternatives are printing more money (which sounds like fun) or taxing folks more money, which has a stifling effect on the economy. Unlike the government, when people have less money, they tend to spend less instead of more.
To avoid arguments over this topic, however, I have a proposal that will generate a great deal of revenue without having a detrimental effect on a large segment of the population. On September 2, the Orlando Sentinel ran a story about lawmakers doing away with some archaic laws on the books. One law that has never been repealed is the one making living together without marriage a crime, punishable by sixty days in jail and a $500 fine. Yes, unmarried cohabitation is considered by the state as "lewd and lascivious" behavior (A3). It is also called fornication and is of so great importance that those who live in this manner shall be judged by God and experience eternal fire—unless they repent.
What are these lawmakers thinking of? All right, get rid of the jail time, but collect the $500. How many couples are living together outside of marriage in Florida—100,000? Could the state use an additional fifty million dollars a year? Even if such couples were only fined once a year for violating the law, that would be a great increase in revenue. Fine the couples twice a year, and the revenue would be doubled! What a bonanza! Apply this "sin" tax to the whole country, and we might reduce our indebtedness.
What makes this tax solution taxing is that another government agency would probably be created to collect the fines, and it would end up costing more to administer than it would be worth. And with the government's usual efficiency, eventually the fine would be collected from those who are married instead. So, probably we should just disregard the entire proposal.
Ignorance Makes for Interesting Columns
Scott Maxwell, the writer of the story apparently had some sort of axe to grind with Christians; his point is scarcely intelligible. He wonders why lawmakers want to do away with this law, since adultery is one of the Ten Commandments, yet they oppose homosexual marriage and do not care whether or not people work on Sunday, another of the Ten Commandments. Sigh. Maxwell uses the term logic as if he knows what the word means. Perhaps he does; it's difficult to say. One thing he does not know is the Bible.
He apparently does not know that Christians are not under the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, because they were nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). All mankind is now under the New Testament of Jesus Christ (whether they know it or not). The state may call fornication "open adultery," but in the Bible the term adultery would not be used of a single male and female who were living together. That term is reserved for a couple when at least one of the couple is married to someone else. Fornication is a broader term that includes unmarrieds, marrieds, or homosexuals. Just because something was not in the "Top Ten" does not imply that it was not a grievous sin (Gen. 18:20). Rape, incest, and pedophilia are also absent. It would be unexpected for there to be talk about the absurd idea of homosexual "marriage" in the Old Testament, since they were to be put to death in the first place! The Bible does not have any difficulty defining sin; modern man has the problem; he doesn't like the definitions.
The fourth commandment does not prohibit work on Sunday. It forbids work on the Sabbath Day, which is Saturday. In the New Testament there is no prohibition against working on Sunday. The Sabbath commandment was a sign of the covenant between God and the Israelites (Ex. 31:17). Maxwell cannot be blamed too much for his unlearned statements; most people are in the same boat he is, resulting from a lack of study or serious thinking on the Scriptures.
Obsolete?
It would seem that everyone is agreed that, due to the widespread practice of it, we should just allow fornication to continue unabated. For the most part, adultery is seldom used for divorce, either; so there is another sin that used to be illegal that no longer is. Say, while we are on a roll, why not get rid of other sinful things? Take, for example, this silly story on page one of the Sentinel about Internet Café gambling (and we have one across the street from our church building).
Are people outraged over these "strip mall casinos"? Sure, they may attract a little crime, and someone was murdered at one of them, but in fifty years, who's to say anyone will care about them any more than people today care about the laws against fornication? After all, it's what people are willing to accept, isn't it? Who would be so old-fashioned as to say, "Look! Fornication, adultery, and gambling are sins, and the government ought not to endorse them." Of course, there would be a teensy problem saying that; the government does allow some types of gambling. Perhaps we should legalize all sinful things. No, that would not be practical, since stealing and murder would be legitimized.
Is it possible that certain problems are complex and not easily resolved? It is easy for columnists to trivialize certain problems, but what, then, are their answers to other things of the same type? Such is the problem of deserting absolute standards. Another story on A4 from September 1 of the Sentinel decries male students in Ocoee having sex with girls younger than 16. Is that shocking? Probably—especially for the parents of those girls. But when did the law change from 17 or 18, which is what it used to be? Will this issue be decided by human standards? The argument will be made that the girls were agreeable. Surely, when laws were changed previously, people argued that it was not fair to ruin a young man's life and that girls who were 16 and 17 were old enough to know the score. Will we have a revival of those arguments and change the laws again because these are mostly school athletes? Maybe in twenty years, the age limit will be down to 12. If Maxwell is still around, he can write a flippant column about lawmakers getting rid of these archaic laws that are designed to protect girls from physical and emotional harm.
Does morality exist, and upon what is it based? While civilizations come and go, God's morality has remained the same. It does not change just because certain segments of the population have rejected it. The looser we become, as a society, the worse things become. Penalties become less and less. One can commit murder and only receive 25 to life instead of the death penalty, which God prescribed (Gen. 9:5-6). In many instances, the killer is never caught, and in many more, although guilt is clearly seen, he (or she) may be found, "Not Guilty," anyway. Even those convicted of capital crimes last on death row from ten to twenty years instead of receiving justice that would by no one's definition be termed speedy.
Solutions?
If we are going to maintain an orderly society, we must have some standard of morality, and it cannot be subjective—at the mercy of the whim and popular sentiment of the nation at any given time. Presumably, people see the practical value of murder being illegal. Likewise, they do not want their property stolen. But when did we stop seeing that adultery is bad for society, also? Experts tell us that it is devastating to children, as if we could not draw that conclusion from our own eyes. No-fault divorce is not a good substitute. Those who are guilty for breaking up a home should have to pay financially and socially. Only if there is a reasonable penalty will people stop behaving badly. The minute we cave in and say, "It's going to happen; we can't stop it; too many people are guilty of it," that's the moment that bad behavior becomes acceptable. The more that a crime is decriminalized; the faster it becomes acceptable to citizens.
After many years, the law finally got tough on drunk drivers, and the crime has diminished but not disappeared. Conversely, the more marijuana is decriminalized, the greater its usage will be, and the more people will need it for their physical ailments (haha). If anything, the age should be raised to 17 or 18 for "consensual" sex between youths. Strict penalties will discourage young men from taking something that does not belong to them. Laws against homosexuality should not have been lessened. When it came to what some psychologists and advice columnists thought and what the Bible says, we ought to have had enough sense to realize that God knows more about the harmful effects of the sin to society than we do. Similarly, we should not have offered approval to those living in fornication.
Conservative Christians do not have all the answers, either, and some issues are truly complex, but we know this truth: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Pr. 14:34). When we have choices, we should opt for the one that brings the most honor to God. Fornication does not, adultery does not, drunkenness does not, homosexuality does not, getting high on drugs does not, pornography does not, stealing does not, gambling does not, the use of foul language does not, coarse humor does not, taking the Lord's name does not, murder does not. This culture can do better than it is doing. Laws should encourage right behavior. What is needed is internal transformation that comes through the gospel.