The Socialism(ist) Game

What's in a name? You can take any name for anything and argue that for a long time. I am going to take a look at one name, word, in particular for this article. Because, like any other word or name, it has a tendency to lose its original meaning and take on a whole new meaning. I call this the evolution of words. Now, to be clear, I am not an evolutionist of any kind, not even words. It is my belief that words have meaning and that meaning should be absolute. The world in which we live tends to view everything as if it it were “living and breathing”, therefore growing and changing. Even words. I argue that is not the case. If we begin to change the meaning of words, we can change the way people think, act, and perceive. This is a travesty of the highest order, especially in light of our world view.

The word in question is the word “social” and all its derivatives.

We have all kinds of meanings and connotations associated with this word. We have “social security”, a quiet person might be viewed as “anti-social”, some worry about the “social skills” of homeschooled kids. Now we have what is called “socialized” medicine.

The true definition of the word “social”, is “pertaining to society, relating to men living in society, or to the public as an aggregate body.” This is from the only dictionary, in my opinion, the Noah Webster 1828. There is more to it, of course, but this will suffice.

The word social by this definition refers to man in a body, community, living with others. However, the word has taken on a slightly different meaning in recent history, building on the true definition and adding the connotation of a working together, an “all for one and one for all” mindset. It is believed that if we all live together in this world, we need to work together, share with each other and relate with each other.

The trouble is that most Americans are freedom lovers. I like to think even liberals like to think for themselves (this may be overly optimistic). I have noticed that the Scotch-Irish that mainly immigrated to the south, are incredibly freedom loving. It is interesting that the Germanic people, who immigrated mostly to the north have a problem with fighting for their freedom in history, the seem to like following a single person, even if it is down the wrong path. But the Scotch-Irish seem to have a history of freedom fighting. Examples are William Wallace and the IRA, among many more.

The question is, are these freedom loving Americans anti-social, without care for their fellow man? Are they un-American if they don't fall in line with the powers that be? I don't think so. I say that makes them very American, considering our nation's history. For the record, I am a freedom loving, gun holding, Christian Amreican of Germanic decent. My statements are merely observations. This may also get me on the domestic terrorist list.

I believe that there are socialists in our government. I also believe that they are on both sides of the aisle. The socialists in our government don't, truly, understand what socialism means, themselves. Their idea of “social” means that they have all the knowledge and experience necessary to “help” us make sound decisions. The translation of this is, “do as we say, we know best.”

My connotation of social is, simply put, being friendly toward others in a genuine way, caring for and helping those in need. Willing to offer advice, if sought, help or opinion. You know, hang out with friends and family, offering a hand.

The social we understand today is rooted in humanism. That is, man kinds ability to control events, crafting his own destiny (Google the “humanist Manifesto and read it, you'll see what I mean). Man is in charge of himself. We see example after example of the dangers of this religion of humanism. The bible even warns us of this type of false teaching. Just look at the Hebrew people and what happened when they trusted in themselves (humanism).

God wants us to trust in Him, alone. In doing so, to “love one another”, which is the most anti-anti-social behavior I can think of. Is God a communist? Was Jesus a Socialist? Absolutely, positively NOT! God does not have political leanings, in fact, I'm not sure He likes politics at all. One thing is certain, though, God is all about relationships. His relationship to His Son, His Son's relationship to us, our relationship to our family and our families relationship to the world. That, my friends, is a biblical world view on the word “social”.