This November, America will again choose our leader for the next four years. At present, it looks as though President Trump will be the Republican candidate while the Democratic choice is still up for grabs. Although it doesn’t pay well, the prestige and power connected to this office have certainly sparked fierce exchanges between all candidates.
During one recent interaction, Bernie Sanders stated that it was immoral for Michael Bloomberg to have so much wealth. Without explaining his criteria for that statement, he went on to criticize the former mayor for his immense riches.
But I have to push back a little. Although I’m not a Bloomberg fan, I must ask a few questions. What makes simply possessing wealth immoral? And at what amount does it become so? Is it millions or billions? Is it immoral for Sanders to own three homes when many Americans own none? And who decides?
Wealth itself is morally neutral. It is neither good nor bad. What makes it one or the other involves how it was obtained and how it is used. Throughout history there have been many wealthy individuals who got that way through dishonest or violent means. Obviously their actions to obtain their wealth were immoral.
On the flip side, there have been several people who have amassed great assets through honest and beneficial means. Foremost is the late Truett Cathy who founded Chick-fil-A. Not only did he become wealthy in creating this business, he also enabled his workers to improve their own financial positions, as well as their leadership skills.
Similarly, Cathy used his wealth to benefit others. Few people have been more generous with their income and yet his wealth still grew. In a similar fashion, I’ve heard that C L Best, who founded the Caterpillar equipment company, gave ninety percent of his enormous income to churches and other ministries that blessed others.
Simply having wealth isn’t immoral. I confess ignorance with regard to how Mayor Bloomberg made his billions, but I am concerned about the way he has used them to promote abortion. Ironically, many candidates support abortion without the slightest qualm and somehow fail to see that as grossly immoral. I’d ask Senator Sanders how it’s not immoral to take life from the most vulnerable while adults have the ability to defend themselves against physical attacks.
All of this begs the underlying question. What makes anything moral or immoral? What makes something right or wrong? Deep down all of us have a conscience that cries out whenever we sense injustice and, although imperfect, it forcefully verifies that some things are inherently right and others wrong.
For those who reject God, this makes no sense. Without a Creator, the only arbiter of morality is public opinion which changes more often than the wind. Hitler’s morality becomes just as valid as anyone else’s since his morals were embraced and implemented by a majority in his country.
It would be immoral to seize anyone’s wealth and give it away just as it would be wrong to seize someone’s hard earned votes and add them to another’s totals. I base those judgments not only on what my conscience says, but on what the Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal.” That holds true regardless of how much the other person owns.
The Bible also tells us that if we are blessed with wealth we should share it voluntarily, even as Cathy and Best did. I would encourage all of us to make the Bible our sole criteria in determining what is moral and what is not.
Next Saturday, March 7, former atheist Mary Jo Sharp will be at Antioch Church in Woodstock to explain what changed her mind and how we can know for sure what’s right and what’s wrong. She will begin at 9am and it is free and open to all. Come and bring your questions about morality and its basis, for these questions are at the heart not only of our elections, but of our very existence. I hope to see you there.
Blessings, George