Socialism and Communism have a seductive appeal, since they are the political embodiment of altruistic (selfless) ideological principles. In those systems each person works for the common good and the State looks after every one! What could possibly be wrong with that?
After all, Judeo-Christian belief systems (and almost all religions) view altruism as a virtue.
So, if Religion is good, a system that is based on altruism must also be good. How can Religious people remain consistent and object to a selfless economic system?
Observe that you will often hear well-meaning people say that "Communism is good as an ideal, but it just wasn't properly implemented in Soviet Russia".
And this is exactly why socialism finds a fertile soil in Religious countries. It isn't surprising that America has a large percentage of socialists - we usually call them liberals.
Religious Conservatives have to use the "but, it doesn't work" argument against socialism. And, they're right! Socialism DOESN'T work.
But that is a weaker argument based on pragmatism - and it lacks moral conviction.
So, some religious conservatives (who can't shake off the intuitive feeling that their argument is without moral strength) attempt to say that they are FOR altruism, but they are for Capitalism (not socialism) because it's success provides benefits to their fellow man.
That's when they have to come up with pretzel-like contortions like "Compassionate Conservatism".
A liberal might say the following (imagine these words from a moist-eyed Bill Clinton, upper lip fully a-quiver during a SOTU speech):
"Our Govt funded public schools are meant to provide a great education for all poor Americans - and we must not rest until every poor child is college educated.
[Bipartisan rumble of applause; after all, who can disagree with such laudable sentiments?]
"Yes, sadly (deep sigh, wiping a tear), the system isn't working despite the selfless service of our teachers. Teachers like Ms. Marsha McLiberal [points to a photogenic teacher, seated next to Hillary]
[More bipartisan applause, because everyone applauds the 'selfless' sacrifice of public school teachers]
"My fellow Americans, I call upon this generous and caring nation to sacrifice until we can achieve this worthy goal."
[Tumultuous applause; after all don't we ALL agree that we should be generous, caring and willing to sacrifice?]
Once we agree to this kind of humbug in principle, we are fighting a losing battle on 'methods' rather than principle.
The principle that we should follow is that no political system should require enslavement or human sacrifice!
No, I'm not referring to the kind of human sacrifice that ends up with shrunken heads, or missionaries in a cannibal's cooking pot. I'm talking about the enslavement of one person for the benefit of another. So, when we are told to sacrifice for the sake of "public education", or "universal health care", we should be able to reject it on MORAL grounds AS WELL AS pragmatic grounds.
When a politician calls for higher taxes to fund one of those 'feel-good' programs, s/he is promoting a coercive confiscation of our money. Since money is obtained from work, such coercive taxation is synonymous with enslavement.
Incidentally, this is not a argument against charity - which is a VOLUNTARY form of altruism.