My point is that this idea that the government “should not compel charity” is incompatible with the purpose of law. Conservatives who want abortion outlawed with all other forms of unlawful killing wish to compel those Americans who do not care about “blobs of jelly” etc. to obey the Fifth Commandment. Under Christ's own analysis, that commandment is a precept of charity. We may take it for granted that murder has always been outlawed, but we need to remember why. Without charity, it is just killing, like killing a rabbit. (Now don't take that remark to mean that I think humans are not worth more than rabbits!)

The law goes further than this. For example, the three branches of government collectively require all of us to expend labour and money on making our homes secure for our neighbors to visit. This is called occupier's liability, and as I mentioned before, it derives in no small measure from the parable of the Good Samaritan.

From this I do not see why it is beyond the law to provide assistance to “loser home owners” who would like to pay their bills but can't sell their homes because the market has come to a standstill, and are now threatened by falling wages and rising unemployment. Unless we should not have provided assistance to tsunami victims because they should have taken out insurance? Or perhaps the “losers” had to take the risk of violent weather when they sought the reward of a sun-kissed location? (By the way, until you have an national Church in America then privately donating to your favorite denomination will not cover these things.)

In summary, I do not believe that Glen Beck's principle 7 as currently stated stands up to scrutiny. It is not consistent with the current state of the law or with the overall conservative political platform.

And come to think of it, if “God is the center of my life”, why is He second on Glen's list of principles?

My point is that this idea that the government “should not compel charity” is incompatible with the purpose of law. Conservatives who want abortion outlawed with all other forms of unlawful killing wish to compel those Americans who do not care about “blobs of jelly” etc. to obey the Fifth Commandment. Under Christ's own analysis, that commandment is a precept of charity. We may take it for granted that murder has always been outlawed, but we need to remember why. Without charity, it is just killing, like killing a rabbit. (Now don't take that remark to mean that I think humans are not worth more than rabbits!)

The law goes further than this. For example, the three branches of government collectively require all of us to expend labour and money on making our homes secure for our neighbors to visit. This is called occupier's liability, and as I mentioned before, it derives in no small measure from the parable of the Good Samaritan.

From this I do not see why it is beyond the law to provide assistance to “loser home owners” who would like to pay their bills but can't sell their homes because the market has come to a standstill, and are now threatened by falling wages and rising unemployment. Unless we should not have provided assistance to tsunami victims because they should have taken out insurance? Or perhaps the “losers” had to take the risk of violent weather when they sought the reward of a sun-kissed location? (By the way, until you have an national Church in America then privately donating to your favorite denomination will not cover these things.)

In summary, I do not believe that Glen Beck's principle 7 as currently stated stands up to scrutiny. It is not consistent with the current state of the law or with the overall conservative political platform.

And come to think of it, if “God is the center of my life”, why is He second on Glen's list of principles?

Thank you for that thought.

My concern is that conservative values as they are publicly presented, for example by Rush Limbaugh at CPAC, appear to extol material worth over everything else. The impression given is that, if you have any extra financial burdens, from whatever source, you will fall behind in the race to become the next Gates, Woods or Limbaugh. The reality, however, is that a handicapped child may be born to a man who works in a furniture store and his wife who is a cleaner in a hotel. They must find happiness in being good people, not in accumulating astronomical amounts of money, which the vast majority of good Americans will die never having achieved.

Other than that, it would help if you didn't just defend my right to speak, but that we discussed substantive points. For example, was I wrong to suggest that compulsory national insurance could be a good idea? If so, why? If not, why are we not hearing Republicans talk about this in public? Is it media censorship?

According to Gina, only “losers” – there's that word again – do not donate to charity or pay tithes. Doesn't that violate Glen Beck's principle 7:
“I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to.”

Is it that the Government cannot compel me to be charitable, but my neighbors can, through stigmatization and ostracism? It seems a subtle distinction. How about tithes? Are these voluntary or compulsory? Just to be clear again – I am anti-abortion and I am not anti-tithe. I am not, however, averse to presenting counter-arguments, as this is vital to sound debate of one's principles.

Does prohibiting the Government from compelling charity extend to repealing consumer protection laws? How about the duty of care under the law of tort? In Britain, this concept began in 1932 with a case that used the moral example of the Good Samaritan as one foundation for it. Does that violate principle 7? Why not?