Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Right wing people can possibly be Christian?

Thread: Purgatory: Right wing people can possibly be Christian? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000986

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

A paraphrase of Matthew 25, starting at v 31.

'You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick so I repealed your only chance for health care. You were a prisoner, so I tortured you.'

How can right wing views be reconciled with Jesus? Particularly the wish to be wealthy, the wish to be a unitary culture with one kind of culture and family, to ignore social conditions and blame people for their poverty, to be wilfully blind to the social conditions that create crime? Tell me please, because I really want to see how this is possible.

[ 10. January 2014, 21:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

They have a punitive God. You know, God had to kill someone to punish for sin, couldn't just forgive, punishment must precede forgiveness and love, someone had to die, had to be a horribly painful death not an easy death because PUNISHMENT is demanded by God. An easy death wouldn't be sufficient punishment to satisfy God. Good thing for us Jesus volunteered or we'd all go to hell because God would be barred by law from loving and caring for us.

Or something like that.

If you worship a God who values punishment and rigid "righteous" law ahead of forgiveness and love and caring, that attitude creeps into your soul and you believe "they" are bad and "deserve" only punishment.

"They" being non-Christians, you know, the ones Jesus didn't die for. If you said the sinner's prayer (and are anti-abortion even to save a life and tithe and go to the right kind of church and got baptized by full immersion as an adult and etc) then you deserve forgiveness no matter what you do, but everyone else is worthless scum who don't deserve any kind of help.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yo, I smell stereotyping here. There is a difference between right or left wingism, or central wingism (shoulderbladism?) and pure assholery. Assholes come in every political stripe.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Social conservatives probably ask the same thing about you, N.P. While I tend to be with you on what we, as Christians, should focus on, it is important to ask to what extent any political party can help us show others that the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I's not the social conservatives. It's the rich ones who associate their wealth with social conservatism so as to justify themselves. Having decided that both riches and their rigid ideas about social order are God-given, violating some of the basic ideals of the Christianity's founder. It's not about political parties either. Though it does puzzle how progressivism, the ideas of elevating the masses through education and opportunity which were clearly based on Christian ideals, somehow became something to criticize and denigrate, even though in many places, these were clearly the product of social gospel. It is difficult for a rich person to get into heaven.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I's not the social conservatives. It's the rich ones who associate their wealth with social conservatism so as to justify themselves.

If only Jesus, Paul, and James had said something definite about rich people and their attitudes.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Well, I can assure you that labeling people as right wing or left wing will almost guarantee that no real dialog will ever take place. Yes, SOME people who consider themselves social conservatives have some rather odd ideas about the poor. Then again, some liberals also have some odd ideas about poor people. I have heard my really, really, REALLY liberal friends say to me, in all seriousness, that poor people SHOULD steal from the rich, or "THE MAN" and that capitalism is evil and the rich should be forced to give up their money, so that everyone in the world would be equal.

Good thing Jesus loves the rich con-evo as well as the loony liberal. As for changing attitudes, one of my good friends came out to her very conservative father and he accepted her and his political beliefs have mellowed, over the years. Perhaps, instead of attacking each other about our differing viewpoints, we ought to try and find one thing that unites us and go from there. Just a thought.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yo, I smell stereotyping here. There is a difference between right or left wingism, or central wingism (shoulderbladism?) and pure assholery. Assholes come in every political stripe.

Yeah, you're right. I need to calm down. I had just come from a chat with a Conservative Christian friend who thinks we should nuke Iraq because "they are dirty, they don't bathe." Yesterday it was a chat with someone who believes criminals should be locked up for life unless they convert to Christianity in which case they should be let out. And oh the opposition to making health care available to all citizens!

I need to go spend a weekend with some of my atheist friends. [Smile]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I's not the social conservatives. It's the rich ones who associate their wealth with social conservatism so as to justify themselves. Having decided that both riches and their rigid ideas about social order are God-given, violating some of the basic ideals of the Christianity's founder.

Actually, my Conservative Christian "all true Christians are Republicans and oppose all governmental social programs" friends are not earning much. A carpenter, a Walmart employee etc.

Some have no health insurance but oppose Obamacare because it's "Big Government" and "socialism" both of which are not just wrong but "part of the devil's plan to destroy" the God-founded USA.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

aaaah, we're talking about America here! Phew, for a minute we were talking about normal people ... [Biased]

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I think the best thing that anyone can do in this country or Africa, is to create a job for someone so they can exist on their own with their pride and self-worth intact. Does that make me right-wing ? Generally speaking Handouts rob people of their self-respect, although obviously they are sometimes necessary. I give at least 10% of my earnings to Charity. I try to give to Charities that invent simple ways of improving sanitation or cooking, or that provide a well for clean water. I most certainly do not give to beggars in the street. Right-wing or not ?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't think anyone on the left is against good jobs for everyone capable of working. It's just that not everyone is capable, and the market does not provide those jobs on its own. Indeed current right wing economic thinking requires that around 5% of the population be unemployed.

Public services aren't about handouts anyway; they're about paying collectively for things that are too costly or unpredictable to pay for individually. You never know when or if you're going to need healthcare, unemployment insurance, housing (remember that council housing was meant to be a viable alternative for everyone, rather than a safety net for the poorest) etc. In any case, receiving benefits from a society that acknowledges that you would work if you could but that you currently can't is far less demeaning than having to go to a food bank and beg for food.

Refusing to give to beggars when you can afford to is certainly right wing, and certainly contrary to scripture.

[ 05. October 2013, 08:13: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

I can see a case for having a view that it's not my role as influencing the government* to enforce Christian values [or that the private sector is more efficient at proviging them etc...].
But in that case
(a) the chap should be voluntary living like the laws were communist (I exaggerate slightly).
(b) it also applies to the dead horses (although potentially only as directly state related).

But it definitely ought to constrain the way you can be right wing. Similarly there are some ways of being left wing that are dodgy.

*in my case as a voter and very weak producer/consumer.

[ 05. October 2013, 08:55: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Gosh, this takes me back to my teens: the happy whiff of self-righteousness, naivety, idealism, unreality and earnestness.

Yes, NP, we've all guessed you've got Miliband minor in your mind somewhere.

And before I'm drowned out by a howling lynch mob, do tell me the difference between pointing out the Miliband father was a marxist - deemed not cricket - and pointing out that Cameron father worked hard to send his son to Eton - so the son pilloried for the choice made by his father?

The inconvenient thing in the Miliband case is that it was Ed M who actually brought his father into play in the first place: personally I deplore the language being used by the Mail and the actions of its journalists over the memorial service are vile and beyond any justification. But the fact remains that Ed brought his father into the equation so he was either being naive or incredibly stupid not to expect his papa's Marxism to become an issue.

As for the original question [Can right-wing people possibly be Christian] - if the original poster means this to be "Can conservatives be Christian" this is crude and offensive. Being socially conservative doesn't make you incapable of having feeling for your fellow man, of living a life full of genuine compassion for those less fortunate and of being genuinely charitable.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Looking at the OP: surely anybody can be a Christian? Even people who I think are completely misguided or downright wrong. The thing I've learnt to recognise is that we bring who we are and all that has formed us from the familial through to the cultural into our understanding of the faith and its outworking and into our relationships both with God and people.

I've lost count of how many times fellow Christians from all sorts of different backgrounds have expressed opinions which jarred with my own ethical/ social/ political perspectives. Each and every time this happens I have to return to Christ and ask him for the grace to engage.....regardless of how I feel the gospel should look politically/ socially. I've learned to live confidently in my sense of revelation but also humbly enough to accept that everything including our political perspectives is an unfinished work, requiring the Holy Spirit to bring it to completion and that fact is quite frankly a level playing field.

That said, in the interests of transparency I feel I should state that I'm currently working with the poorest in the community here in Kenya and that I try to give food to people on the streets both here and in the UK as that is how I understand part of the call of the gospel.....but my right wing friends see things very differently!

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I think the best thing that anyone can do in this country or Africa, is to create a job for someone so they can exist on their own with their pride and self-worth intact. Does that make me right-wing ? Generally speaking Handouts rob people of their self-respect, although obviously they are sometimes necessary. I give at least 10% of my earnings to Charity.

Potentially makes you Left Wing
(I'm trying to find a nice link on the USSR's policy*)
The issue is do you actually create the job? What you do to those who you don't create a job for? What rights do you give and take from those you create the job for?

*which I don't need to say wasn't always nice to workers, or particularly in accordance with socialism.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Well the answer may depend on how you define your terms, and both Right Wing and Christian are pretty fluid.

I prefer to use the word Christian in the sense of someone who self-identifies as belong to some branch of the orthodox christian church .

So in that sense, some who are right wing in the sense of Fascist or near-Fascist are clearly christian, including Generals Pinochet and Franco, (Catholic) and Efraim Rioss-Montt (probably wrong spelin - who was Pentecostal).

Then there are those "right-wing" christians whose main aim is to reduce the size of government. I have known some of these who were exemplary in giving of themselves and there resources to others, but were deeply suspicious of Government and Politicians (Can you believe it???). That seems a perfectly respectable position for a christian to hold.

So yes, christians (whatever that means) can clearly be right-wing (whatever that means).

Of course if you are really asking whether self-satisfied mega-rich fat cats whose main reaction to the poor is to piss on them, are close to the heart of God, then that is really a rhetorical question. Or maybe just a daft one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's just confirmation bias, isn't it? This is like a lens, through which most people view a body of teachings such as Christianity, and use it to filter out stuff which doesn't fit their bias.

I would say that most people have such a bias, both left and right (and centre), and they are usually incredulous about the other lot, because they have a different lens.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

To the OP. Like everyone, in so far as we see Christ clearly to follow. Our weakness, ignorance, projection(ignorance), fear(ignorance), inculturation(ignorance), unexamined assumptions(ignorance) get in the way.

Poison Christianity regardless of politics.

With damnationism.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
How can right wing views be reconciled with Jesus?

I have no problem with conservatives who want to make the world a better place; that is consistent with the Gospel. I also have no problem with liberals or socialists with the same aim, even if their methods differ.

What is less easy to reconcile with the Lord are those who do not care about making anything better for anyone but themselves, and who are happy to live in comfort, regardless of how others live.

In other words, imo it is the complacent and apathetic who are contrary to the Gospel, not those who strive for change, of whatever kind.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

What a strange question. Of course right-wing people can be Christian, and neither of those things makes them any more stupid or evil or insincere than anyone else (and alleging any of those things is just nasty and bigotted and well on the way to the sort of disregard for one's fellow man and his freedom that encapsulated Soviet Russia).

There's been a fine tradition of a Christian Right. There's also been a fine tradition of the Christian Left allying itself with the Irreligious Left against the Christian Right, which does not seem to be making Christianity as much of a priority as it should be.

I'll leave you with a thought from every Tory's favourite Methodist:

"No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he only had good intentions; he had money too." — Margaret Thatcher

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I find it hard if not impossible to reconcile Christianity with right-wingery.

Christians are called to be agents of God's reign/kingdom and all the prophetic texts about that reign are about equality, the abolition of poverty etc.

And our lady sings about putting 'down the mighty from their seat and exalting the humble and meek.'

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

There are strands of both liberty and equality running through those texts. It's a matter of emphasis, and also a matter of to what extent one views the state as an appropriate vehicle for advancing those aims.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Surely a look at history tells us that Christianity has been the religion of people with very many different political beliefs, including some which are not on the current democratic spectrum at all.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I find it hard if not impossible to reconcile Christianity with right-wingery.

In the US, statistics show that social conservatives give far more money to charities that help the poor than social liberals give.

Government programs are frequently very inefficient, and many needy people fall through the cracks.

Moo

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I find it hard if not impossible to reconcile Christianity with right-wingery.
In the US, statistics show that social conservatives give far more money to charities that help the poor than social liberals give.Moo

Charity merely papers over the cracks while keeping injustice and a bad social (dis)order in place.

So I don't see 'charity' as a mark of a Christian.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I find it hard if not impossible to reconcile Christianity with right-wingery.
In the US, statistics show that social conservatives give far more money to charities that help the poor than social liberals give.

Government programs are frequently very inefficient, and many needy people fall through the cracks.

Moo

If memory serves those statistics are distorted by the association of conservatism with religion in the US - it's religion rather than conservatism which is the predictor.

Governments are actually much more efficient than charity or private enterprise in many situations. Comparing the NHS with the US healthcare system makes that pretty clear. Cracks tend to be a result of cuts to public spending, which is why there has been a massive growth in food banks in recent years.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yep, Christianity is all about Left Wing Politics and not being a complete narcissist (a little narcissism is OK...individualism and all that).

Thanks for your honesty no prophet.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I find it hard if not impossible to reconcile Christianity with right-wingery.
In the US, statistics show that social conservatives give far more money to charities that help the poor than social liberals give.

Government programs are frequently very inefficient, and many needy people fall through the cracks.

Interesting stats, the ones I've read say conservatives give more but are giving to their churches and not to community charities. If you are giving 10% to the church you probably don't have money remaining to give to the public library or the free health clinic or the food pantry or the adult literacy program or the mentoring at risk school children program or etc.

I agree government programs are inefficient and people fall through the cracks, but most (all?) programs were created because far more people were falling through the cracks of private charity before the program. The failure of private giving is why governments got involved.

We need a better solution than either current government programs or private charity whims. I don't know what.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yep, Christianity is all about Left Wing Politics and not being a complete narcissist (a little narcissism is OK...individualism and all that).

Thanks for your honesty no prophet.

It might be worth reflecting that there probably wouldn't be a political left wing as we understand it, without Judaism (Marxism) or Christianity (Social democracy). The ideals which drive "Left wing" politics predate those politics by at least two millenia. Where did these people get their ideas from? It's all in the Book.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Universal provision is generally the best way of improving efficiency and avoiding people falling through gaps. If you rely on means testing then you duplicate work done in the tax system in the benefits system. Raise taxes and institute a citizen income (leaving the average person no better or worse off) then you avoid both benefit traps and benefit fraud. Every hour of work done is worthwhile and improves your situation.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Universal provision is generally the best way of improving efficiency and avoiding people falling through gaps. If you rely on means testing then you duplicate work done in the tax system in the benefits system. Raise taxes and institute a citizen income (leaving the average person no better or worse off) then you avoid both benefit traps and benefit fraud. Every hour of work done is worthwhile and improves your situation.

True. Tax all income and make benefits universal. Anything else produces the poverty and affluence traps that so delight our rulers.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I think it a good idea for people who are unemployed to have to work for benefits. I think this is regarded as 'right-wing'. I can't see any difference between people who say have to help with Recycling projects for their benefits to those that are actually employed by the Government such as Bin-collectors. I believe it is the Governments duty to create work where it doesn't exist. Moving Government Jobs to the North is part of this. There are 1000s of Council Woodlands that are dying out because of lack of tree and shrub maintenance and reverting back to scrub and thorns, there are 1000s of footpaths where the stiles have collapsed and are impassable becuase of over-growth, there are 1000s of Charities (843 to be precise in Reading) that want volunteers. I can't see why the unemployed should not be 'forced' to take those positions in return for Benefits plus say a bus pass. So how would everyone else define the latest Governments scheme linking work to Benefits ? Or maybe thats a seperate post altogether ?

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

A post=script. I regard entrepreneurs like Wonga with contempt. They really need Government action to limit their exploitative interest rates. And I would expect all Conservatives and 'right-wingers' to agree.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

There is absolutely no doubt at all that authentic Christianity involves compassion towards the poor, the weak and the vulnerable. Those who despise the poor simply for being poor ("they are obviously not blessed by God") are not Christians, as far as I am concerned. (That is not to say that we should not acknowledge that some people are poor through their own wilful irresponsibility, although these also deserve help and compassion, perhaps of a more robust kind!)

However, the idea of having compassion on the poor is not the sole preserve of the political left. What they are saying is that it is the State that should provide for the poor, and this could actually undermine the responsibility of all of us to care. We can walk past a beggar and assure ourselves that "the State looks after people like that, so obviously it's his own choice to be in that destitute condition." The left provides the biggest excuse to not help the poor.

I certainly believe in a welfare state, and if it were not for the NHS I would probably be dead. I deplore the 'marriage' of Christianity and what can only be described as Social Darwinism in the USA (although such people would be horrified to be associated with Darwin, of course!). But it is quite wrong to claim that so called "right wing" people have no compassion for the poor on account of their being "right wing". It may very well be that many of them affirm that it is down to individuals and communities to administer this compassion rather than a bureaucratic state. Which, to be honest, is an understandable position to take.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I think it a good idea for people who are unemployed to have to work for benefits. I think this is regarded as 'right-wing'. I can't see any difference between people who say have to help with Recycling projects for their benefits to those that are actually employed by the Government such as Bin-collectors. I believe it is the Governments duty to create work where it doesn't exist. Moving Government Jobs to the North is part of this. There are 1000s of Council Woodlands that are dying out because of lack of tree and shrub maintenance and reverting back to scrub and thorns, there are 1000s of footpaths where the stiles have collapsed and are impassable becuase of over-growth, there are 1000s of Charities (843 to be precise in Reading) that want volunteers. I can't see why the unemployed should not be 'forced' to take those positions in return for Benefits plus say a bus pass. So how would everyone else define the latest Governments scheme linking work to Benefits ? Or maybe thats a seperate post altogether ?

If these jobs need to be done (and I can think of many more important tasks that are not currently being done but could be) then these people are no longer unemployed but employed. Therefore they should be paid proper wages and not fobbed off with 'benefits.'

Nobody on the left wants to see anyone who can work having to rely on benefits. There should be enough jobs for all who want them or can do them. But benefits should be generous and available to all who need them. 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.'

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

If it pays to work, then people will work.

At the risk of boring people:

http://www.atkwanti.co.uk/tax/tax.htm

And, is the Gospel According to St Matthew still part of the canon, or has it slipped back into the Apocrypha?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Gosh, this takes me back to my teens: the happy whiff of self-righteousness, naivety, idealism, unreality and earnestness.

Yes, NP, we've all guessed you've got Miliband minor in your mind somewhere.

And before I'm drowned out by a howling lynch mob, do tell me the difference between pointing out the Miliband father was a marxist - deemed not cricket - and pointing out that Cameron father worked hard to send his son to Eton - so the son pilloried for the choice made by his father?

The inconvenient thing in the Miliband case is that it was Ed M who actually brought his father into play in the first place: personally I deplore the language being used by the Mail and the actions of its journalists over the memorial service are vile and beyond any justification. But the fact remains that Ed brought his father into the equation so he was either being naive or incredibly stupid not to expect his papa's Marxism to become an issue.

As for the original question [Can right-wing people possibly be Christian] - if the original poster means this to be "Can conservatives be Christian" this is crude and offensive. Being socially conservative doesn't make you incapable of having feeling for your fellow man, of living a life full of genuine compassion for those less fortunate and of being genuinely charitable.

Erm, the problem is the Daily Heil saying that Ralph Miliband hated Britain when in fact he fought bravely for it in WWII, instead of you know, supporting fascism like the Mail. Nobody is objecting to pointing out Miliband Sr's Marxism at all, it's the idea that Marxism = hating Britain.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It may very well be that many of them affirm that it is down to individuals and communities to administer this compassion rather than a bureaucratic state. Which, to be honest, is an understandable position to take.

The problem is that history amply demonstrates that, by and large, without the state the hungry don't get fed, the naked don't get clothed, and the sick don't get healed. Engineering a society in which people do all those things without state intervention is a goal I think all of us would support; the problem we are faced with is that with the current state of society withdrawing government help means people will die of starvation, exposure and disease. The "compassionate conservative" position is based on a fantasy just as remote as that of the communists. Given the preponderance of evidence one does start to question whether such conservatives are being entirely genuine in their arguing.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I think it a good idea for people who are unemployed to have to work for benefits. I think this is regarded as 'right-wing'. I can't see any difference between people who say have to help with Recycling projects for their benefits to those that are actually employed by the Government such as Bin-collectors. I believe it is the Governments duty to create work where it doesn't exist. Moving Government Jobs to the North is part of this. There are 1000s of Council Woodlands that are dying out because of lack of tree and shrub maintenance and reverting back to scrub and thorns, there are 1000s of footpaths where the stiles have collapsed and are impassable becuase of over-growth, there are 1000s of Charities (843 to be precise in Reading) that want volunteers. I can't see why the unemployed should not be 'forced' to take those positions in return for Benefits plus say a bus pass. So how would everyone else define the latest Governments scheme linking work to Benefits ? Or maybe thats a seperate post altogether ?

Working for benefits = working for less than the minimum wage, and thus should be illegal. Why not give working people an actual wage, as opposed to using unemployed people for cheap labour? There is a huge difference between working for benefits and being employed - those working for benefits are not being employed, and are not being given a proper wage. It is certainly the government's responsibility to create jobs (something that seems to have passed this government by) but they should be actual jobs and not unwaged labour. Why not actually employ people for recycling or council woodland jobs?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I can't see any difference between people who say have to help with Recycling projects for their benefits to those that are actually employed by the Government such as Bin-collectors.

Jobseeking Benefits will be less than £71/week*, employment wages won't. If they get proper pay for their work then it becomes more like Labour's plan or that used in the USSR (at least in theory).

*this excludes child benefit and housing allowance, (which will obviously be the case for the easier targets e.g. the "earn or learn" but not for others) and of course the employed will then pay basic tax&council tax and NIC. So it's not quite so simple in practice.
[massive X post]

[ 05. October 2013, 16:48: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I don't think any man-made political system is espoused by the Bible, although decentralised socialism/mutualism is the closest to Biblical politics that I can tell. However, economic conservatism/classical liberal economics (NOT the same thing as social liberalism) are totally at odds with the Gospel and as such cannot be held in tandem with true Christianity. It is serving both God and Mammon. Putting profit above people - and giving to charity after the fact doesn't change this - is an un-Biblical economic stance to take. There are, of course, un-Biblical political ideas on the left too! I don't see state control as being Biblical, for instance. Personally, the Biblical model looks far more like something under the umbrella of social anarchism than it does traditional socialism.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What Rothermere's 'daddy' did in the war.

Rothermere's great grandfather and owner of the same newspaper was a British fascist and German Nazi sympathiser up until 1939. He personally congratulated Hitler on his takeover of Czechoslovakia and encouraged him to take out Romania.

Apples. Trees. Fall. Near.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Really complicted isn't it ? How do we create jobs and what do we pay people who do them ? How do we encourage people to look after themselves whilst at the same time not let them get too greedy or successful. I used to like the idea of everything being 'privatised' but owned by the workers. Whenever Governments get involved efficiency goes out the window. And Governments are very keen on wars (left as much as right) and wasting money on Aircraft Carriers with no planes. No right-wing person would invest in schemes like Millenium Dome or High Speed 2 rail line because they aren't profitable. Keeping your skilled work-force from becoming ill and educted/trained is a good investment. Jesus seems to be a free-marketeer with parables like the Talents and the Bad Servant ?!?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What Rothermere's 'daddy' did in the war.

Rothermere's great grandfather and owner of the same newspaper was a British fascist and German Nazi sympathiser up until 1939. He personally congratulated Hitler on his takeover of Czechoslovakia and encouraged him to take out Romania.

Has the current Lord Rothermere made a big deal out of being inspired by his great-grandfather? If he has then, fine; the fascism and support of Hitler is fair game. But if not, then ISTM it's very different from the Ed / Ralph Miliband situation.

Ed has said many times that his father was an inspiration for his political views which, coupled with Ed saying the other day that he intends to bring back socialism, makes Ralph Miliband's political views and actions thoroughly newsworthy, I think.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't think anyone, including Ed Miliband, has an issue with his father's political views being discussed. The issue is with the wilful misrepresentation of them for current present day political ends. To take, out of context, one quote from a 17 year old and conclude that the author "hated Britain" is the worst kind of gutter journalism.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

The principled argument for right wing politics is that it is wrong to take (an excessive amount of) other people's money for the purpose of economic redistribution.

The practical argument for it is that economic freedom (including the freedom to enjoy lawfully acquired obscene wealth) tends to make society as a whole more prosperous than the known alternatives.

Nothing unchristian about either, IMHO.

And there are positive right wing values: freedom, equality, individual and family responsibility - which are thoroughly consistent with Christian ethics. I appreciate that not all right-wingers hold them ('right wing', after all, including both laissez-faire liberalism and social conservatism, traditions which are often in tension and sometimes diametrically opposed).

I count myself as centrist rather than right wing. Some right wing views (the Texas voters interviewed on the BBC this week saying Obamacare was the worst thing that had ever happened to their country) appal and scare me. But that's not because they are right wing, but because they are fucking mental. There are some sane right-wingers out there.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yep, Christianity is all about Left Wing Politics and not being a complete narcissist (a little narcissism is OK...individualism and all that).

Thanks for your honesty no prophet.
It might be worth reflecting that there probably wouldn't be a political left wing as we understand it, without Judaism (Marxism) or Christianity (Social democracy). The ideals which drive "Left wing" politics predate those politics by at least two millenia. Where did these people get their ideas from? It's all in the Book.

Really? None of the God approved governments in the Bible look anything like what Left Wingers want. Marxist governments in Eastern Europe and East Asia did resemble theocracies without God. Actually, following the policy proposals of Christian Reconstructionists like The Chalcedon Foundation would give the United States a government the ancient Jews would recognize. Of course, those policies are bat shit crazy, biblical, but bat shit crazy.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So, Beeswax Altar , how do you seed Our lady's magnificat come about through right wingery?

Or is it merely a pie in the sky thing?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So, Beeswax Altar , how do you seed Our lady's magnificat come about through right wingery?

Or is it merely a pie in the sky thing?

So Mary was talking about the Nazarene Social Democratic Party? I rather thought she was talking about God.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

OK...so let me get this straight...Our Lady's response to the Annunciation was to thank God that in 1900 years Her son's teaching would sort of kind of inspire a political philosophy called Socialism that might eventually "send the rich away empty" and not to what Jesus actually accomplished?

Yeah...that's sound exegesis. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yep, Christianity is all about Left Wing Politics and not being a complete narcissist (a little narcissism is OK...individualism and all that).

Thanks for your honesty no prophet.
It might be worth reflecting that there probably wouldn't be a political left wing as we understand it, without Judaism (Marxism) or Christianity (Social democracy). The ideals which drive "Left wing" politics predate those politics by at least two millenia. Where did these people get their ideas from? It's all in the Book.
Really? None of the God approved governments in the Bible look anything like what Left Wingers want. Marxist governments in Eastern Europe and East Asia did resemble theocracies without God. Actually, following the policy proposals of Christian Reconstructionists like The Chalcedon Foundation would give the United States a government the ancient Jews would recognize. Of course, those policies are bat shit crazy, biblical, but bat shit crazy.

The problem is that what you assume left-wingers want and what they actually want are two different things. Many left-wingers (myself included) find heavy-state, top-down communist regimes to be appalling, as well as free-market capitalism. You don't seem to acknowledge that social anarchism is as left-wing as traditional socialism is. There is no one single left-wing ideal, just as there's no one single right-wing ideal. The left-right spectrum is unhelpful by itself anyway - most modern political spectrums occur on more than one axis, such as the Nolan chart.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So, Beeswax Altar , how do you seed Our lady's magnificat come about through right wingery?

Or is it merely a pie in the sky thing?
So Mary was talking about the Nazarene Social Democratic Party? I rather thought she was talking about God.

Yes she was, but it's talking about God doing the things that would make the NSDP happy.
There's a (possibly even good) case that they are doing wrong by taking it from God's hands, doing it in the wrong way, etc...
And several/most people on this thread have declared no/less problem with that sort of right wingerism.

But at the same time, it sits ill at ease with the posts from right wingers that I constantly see on facebook, see in it's purist form when looking to be offended on the wider interweb, and occasionally see on the ship.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The principled argument for right wing politics is that it is wrong to take (an excessive amount of) other people's money for the purpose of economic redistribution.

The practical argument for it is that economic freedom (including the freedom to enjoy lawfully acquired obscene wealth) tends to make society as a whole more prosperous than the known alternatives.

Nothing unchristian about either, IMHO.

And there are positive right wing values: freedom, equality, individual and family responsibility - which are thoroughly consistent with Christian ethics. I appreciate that not all right-wingers hold them ('right wing', after all, including both laissez-faire liberalism and social conservatism, traditions which are often in tension and sometimes diametrically opposed).

I count myself as centrist rather than right wing. Some right wing views (the Texas voters interviewed on the BBC this week saying Obamacare was the worst thing that had ever happened to their country) appal and scare me. But that's not because they are right wing, but because they are fucking mental. There are some sane right-wingers out there.

My problem with your two initial right-wing concepts is that the idea of privately-owned money is questionable in the first place. If all money belongs to everyone in the first place, then tax is not stealing, but the gaining of obscene wealth is. I'm not saying that this is my own personal opinion, by the way, but I do see a problem with assuming privately-owned money is an automatic right. The Bible is ambivalent at best about this. While 'what the Bible says' is a problematic idea in the first place, private property (including the private ownership of money) has more in common with the Enlightenment than the Bible.

Also, are freedom, equality, individual and family responsibility inherently not left-wing ideas? The more libertarian end of the libertarian/collectivist left-wing axis would certainly hold those ideals in high regard. There is more than one way of being left-wing!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If one wants to get to the basis of compatibility with Christianity then we could look at the Ten Commandments or beyond (and through) them to the seven deadly sins stated by Dante, which are usually expressed as greed (or avarice), lust (or lechery), gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

While greed is more often asociated with certain features of right-wing economics and envy with leftist welfarism I can see elements of envy on the right: (why should the poor get x: they haven't worked for it) and greed on the left (give us your second homes) which all the others exist entirely outside any political characterisation.

As for no prophet's remarks about 'right-wing' self-justification I've seen that on 'the left' too, for example amongst people doing jobs that are usually thought of as socially worthy, and therefore in some way better than a job involved in the murky world of business.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yep, Christianity is all about Left Wing Politics and not being a complete narcissist (a little narcissism is OK...individualism and all that).

Thanks for your honesty no prophet.

No, that is a misreading filtred through something I don't understand. Right wing seems to be about not sharing and being unkind. Along the lines of, 'I don't want to pay taxes or otherwise share the wealth because I don't care about the social programs which equalize the monetary inequalities between me whose rich, and you who are not, and I think that these inequalities are ordained by God.'

If I have mislabelled right wing as the term might be used in America and it means something different there please clarify. It means here very clearly policies and ideals about cuts to things that help the most disadvantaged, social policies set by businesses rather than the populace in general via corporate sponsorships, tax policies which allow shielding of money.

I suppose I could just go with it all and not bother. It has made me independently wealthy after all, coming from student-based poverty until I was 30.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable:
The problem is that what you assume left-wingers want and what they actually want are two different things.

Unless you understand the Kingdom of Heaven can only come in it's fullness when a big centralized government legislates it into being, you can't possibly be a Christian. Didn't you read the OP?

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
No, that is a misreading filtred through something I don't understand. Right wing seems to be about not sharing and being unkind. Along the lines of, 'I don't want to pay taxes or otherwise share the wealth because I don't care about the social programs which equalize the monetary inequalities between me whose rich, and you who are not, and I think that these inequalities are ordained by God.'

I know right wingers who give their time and money to Meals on Wheels but don't believe the federal government should be funding it. Are they Christians or not?

I know right wingers who spend much of their free time doing prison ministry but saw no problem with waterboarding in Gitmo. Are they Christians or not? How about the progressives who screamed bloody murder about Gitmo but are strangely silent about Obama's drone strikes? Which would you prefer simulated drowning or being killed along with your family by a bomb delivered from a drone?

Illegal immigration? How about we compromise on illegal immigration? The United States is full of awful gun toting bigots. Why would immigrants want to come here? Instead of deporting them back to their countries of origin we will deport them to places like Canada and Scandinavia. They will all be welcome with open arms for sure. And, if they aren't, then it must be because residents of those countries are a bunch of racist xenophobes. Right? Can't be any other reason? You are a Canadian. Start lobbying parliament to make it happen. Truth be told, the rich people that you are railing against have no problem with immigration either legal or illegal. Cheap labor lowers the cost of production which increases profit which make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Healthcare? In your version of Matthew 25, does Jesus also say, "I didn't want health insurance but you forced me to buy it." He must.

The part about being naked? You are serious? I think you know full well Jesus wasn't referring to a nakedness that social conservatives would find problematic. I guess demonizing your political opponents is more important than an accurate interpretation and application of the words of Jesus.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We're stuck with monetary, economic and related social policies formulated by other countries because our economy and population is small. Canada has tried, but followed the USA with massive corporate tax cuts, from the 70% and greater levels in the 1970s to the less than 20% real tax rates today. I have posted on these board before that my companies pay less than 15% in actual tax. I pay more personally on less income, depending on how much I decide to pay myself each year.

Right nown I'm seeing billboards advertising how a mining company (the largest in the world for the commodity it focusses on) sponsors kids hockey teams, built some schools and health centres in the north where they mine. It all sounds good doesn't it? Except that the province and country have no real ability to debate the merits of their mines when they have accepted the corporate sponsorship and buildings the company has provided. The same company is at the Supreme Court of Canada for about $1 billion in taxes the Canada Revenue Agency (like the IRS) says they have illegally transferred to another country via interesting accounting processes.

In the 1970s, the company would have paid a much larger share of taxes and we could decide as a province and nation how to spend the money. Get it? This is but one example.

Pensions. They were formally for most public and private employees, based on a percentage of the highest income years coupled with years of service, and usually indexed to inflation. Now they are all savings plans, where the individual has to save the money they contribute and the company contributes. Net effect: retirement age has been raised from 65 ton 67, and recent info indicated that something like 60% of the under 60 crowd (who have these poorer pensions) say they understand that they will never be able to retire.

Mentally ill? The police are the first responders now to mental health crises, and our prisons are filled with the psychiatrically ill. Drug addicted? Poor? Prison is where they are too.

Tell me how these right wing economic policies and their social consequences are Christian at all. Meals on Wheels? Great. But it and Homecare are user pay now here. Bad meals and erratic service provided by underpaid workers and volunteers and the elderly now pay for it. But the companies sponsor the local live theatre (which could rely on grants from gov't for 60% of its funding) and the plays are no longer "challenging". So it's all good.

I should note by the way, that what is labelled as "left" is actually the middle if this were the 1970s, and the 'right' is something off the map from that era. What is labelled 'left' today is actually centre. Mislablled and wrong.

Note: I didn't write the paraphrase of Matthew, 'twas sent to me by a friend. Naked doesn't work here. Either too many mosquitoes or too cold. YMMV.

[ 06. October 2013, 02:38: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Let’s face it, the term “right-wing” can mean so many things, that unless it is very closely defined and contextualised, it can only be dismissed as a vague and not very helpful expression of disapproval.

Systems which get labeled “right-wing” (some of them overlap, and some are mutually contradictory) include:-

1. Totalitarian nihilism eg Hitler

2. Strongly authoritarian traditionalist reaction eg Franco

3. Socially and politically conservatism (constitutional, not dictatorial) as regards matters such as tradition, authority, family, sex, drugs, censorship

4. Deep suspicion of government meddling and interference in general (historically and
etymologically, actually liberalism)

5. Radical, maximal libertarianism eg Ayn Rand

6. “Noblesse oblige” social welfare paternalism

7. Authoritarian populist social welfarism, as pioneered by Bismarck

8. Anti-communism eg Orwell (who was never anything but left-wing, but gets labelled all sorts of things by those who have never forgiven him for exposing Stalinism)

”Right-wing” attitudes toward religion can be theocratic, hostile or indifferent.

”Right-wing” attitudes toward race range from genocidal to egalitarian (in Australia it was the conservative LCP coalition, not Labor, which initiated the dismantling of the White Australia Policy).

Economically, ”right-wingers” have espoused laissez-faire capitalism, welfare statism, dirigisme, distributism and corporatism (during the 1930s, fascist Italy’s was the most closely controlled economy in Europe after the Soviet Union’s).

“Right-wingers” can demonise refugees, but in Australia after the Vietnam War it was the left which was most hostile to Indo-Chinese asylum-seekers.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Jade Constable
Erm, the problem is the Daily Heil saying that Ralph Miliband hated Britain when in fact he fought bravely for it in WWII, instead of you know, supporting fascism like the Mail. Nobody is objecting to pointing out Miliband Sr's Marxism at all, it's the idea that Marxism = hating Britain.

No one is questioning that Ralph Miliband served during WW II, doing "his bit" in the navy. And the Daily Mail is being naive and simplistic to say that he hated Britain.

However, it is a matter of public record that Ralph Miliband viewed most of the establishment of the British state - the crown, parliament, peace-time armed forces and capitalist system - with contempt.

He was uncritical of the Stalinist USSR and even after Krushchev began to expose the terrible crimes against humanity of the Stalinist state, Ralph Miliband still argued that the "excesses" (mass murder, elimination of political foes, extinction of the army high command, persecution of Jewish intellectuals) were part of an "experiment" and that the broad progress towards a Marxist perfect society under Stalin made the horrors understandable and justifiable.

Moreover, Ralph Miliband's silence about the crushing of the Prague Spring was unforgivable: there were lecturers at the LSE who protested, and most of the student body joined in the condemnation of the forcible occupation of Czechoslovakia by the USSR and the imprisonment of the Czech leadership, but Ralph Miliband remained silent, preferring to continue to heap lavish praise on Mao Zedong and Castro - those two paragons of virtue in the field of human rights.

It is naturally right and proper for Ed Miliband to express love and admiration for his father: but it should also be questioned how much of his father's beliefs in the overthrow of democratic institutions for the greater good and collectivism is shared by the son who openly says that it is partly his father's views that influence his political thinking.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Did Miliband remain silent on the Prague Spring? This text is often cited from a letter to Marcel Liebman:

"The invasion of Czechoslovakia shows very well that this oppressive and authoritarian Russian socialism has nothing in common with the socialism that we demand,and we must state this very loudly, even at the risk of seeming to be anti-soviet and to echo bourgeois propaganda."

It's difficult to actually check the source of this as a letter, but I am assuming it is bona fide.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

L'organist - I hold the concepts of monarchy and unelected rights to sit in the House of Lords in utter contempt; that doesn't mean I hate Britain; I just think it would be better without those two particular outmoded institutions.

It's a strange equation - "not approving of certain institutions" = "hating the country that has them." If I hated Britain, I'd not care.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no one single left-wing ideal, just as there's no one single right-wing ideal.

Indeed.

So is it possible to identify a set of "core" right-of-centre ideas which would be common to most manifestations of right-of-centre politics ?

My attempt would be to say that it's about justice. Justice can be thought of as virtue rewarded and vice punished. The Left seem to believe that all humans are equally virtuous in essence (with any apparent differences being due to social circumstance), so that any inequality of income or wealth is an injustice. They also tend to focus more on wealth distribution than wealth creation.
The Right do not believe this. They believe that a just policy is one which rewards virtue and punishes vice, that avoids what the economists call "perverse incentives". They also tend to focus more on wealth creation than distribution.

Now, whilst I find distasteful the glee with which some right-wingers set about punishing vice (whether within their own society or in international relations), it does seem to me that the right-of-centre view is more Biblical.

Hope that helps.

Russ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
L'organist - I hold the concepts of monarchy and unelected rights to sit in the House of Lords in utter contempt; that doesn't mean I hate Britain; I just think it would be better without those two particular outmoded institutions.

It's a strange equation - "not approving of certain institutions" = "hating the country that has them." If I hated Britain, I'd not care.

Yes, I was puzzled by that equation. You could argue the opposite - that it's because you love your country, that you abhor certain institutions.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Working for benefits = working for less than the minimum wage, and thus should be illegal.

Not true. Benefit levels are already set as being a certain number of hours at minimum wage. The only one I know off-hand is that ESA is the equivalent of 16 hours' pay — which is non-coincidentally the maximum number of hours claimants can work without losing having to interrupt their claim and fill in another horrific form (which inadvertently has the effect of encouraging people with a limited capacity to work to set their horizons at two days per week, rather than three or four).

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Systems which get labeled “right-wing” (some of them overlap, and some are mutually contradictory) include:-

1. Totalitarian nihilism eg Hitler

<snip>

Economically, ”right-wingers” have espoused laissez-faire capitalism, welfare statism, dirigisme, distributism and corporatism (during the 1930s, fascist Italy’s was the most closely controlled economy in Europe after the Soviet Union’s).

So they weren't right-wing at all. They were socialists who identified the nation with the proletariat. Hitler's party even had a big clue in its name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Yet another to add to the list of nasty left-wing dictators.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Tell me how these right wing economic policies and their social consequences are Christian at all. Meals on Wheels? Great. But it and Homecare are user pay now here. Bad meals and erratic service provided by underpaid workers and volunteers and the elderly now pay for it. But the companies sponsor the local live theatre (which could rely on grants from gov't for 60% of its funding) and the plays are no longer "challenging". So it's all good.

You posted some lame paraphrase in the OP but now are unwilling to actually defend it. The paraphrase is clearly a sloppy attack on Republicans in the United States but you then talk about Canada. Can I assume you now realize the paraphrase was lame? Can you admit that the paraphrase shamelessly put demonizing Republicans in the United States over correctly interpreting the gospel?

As to the policies in question, I don't believe they are either inherently Christian or not Christian. I certainly don't think the quality of plays at your local theater has a damn thing to do with the Gospel. I don't believe socialism, libertarianism, or anything in between is inherently Christian. You want to bring Jesus into a discussion on economics? That's fine. Come back and talk to me after YOU have sold all that you own and given it to the poor.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Did Miliband remain silent on the Prague Spring? This text is often cited from a letter to Marcel Liebman:

"The invasion of Czechoslovakia shows very well that this oppressive and authoritarian Russian socialism has nothing in common with the socialism that we demand,and we must state this very loudly, even at the risk of seeming to be anti-soviet and to echo bourgeois propaganda."

It's difficult to actually check the source of this as a letter, but I am assuming it is bona fide.

If "we must state this very loudly," then why is this one letter which can't be accurately sourced the only evidence that the guy had any problem at all with the Soviet Union's intervention in Czechoslovakia?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Did Miliband remain silent on the Prague Spring? This text is often cited from a letter to Marcel Liebman:

"The invasion of Czechoslovakia shows very well that this oppressive and authoritarian Russian socialism has nothing in common with the socialism that we demand,and we must state this very loudly, even at the risk of seeming to be anti-soviet and to echo bourgeois propaganda."

It's difficult to actually check the source of this as a letter, but I am assuming it is bona fide.
If "we must state this very loudly," then why is this one letter which can't be accurately sourced the only evidence that the guy had any problem at all with the Soviet Union's intervention in Czechoslovakia?

What's your source that this is the only evidence about Miliband's thoughts about the Prague Spring?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

KL

I did not say that it was possible to infer from Ralph Milibands on-record beliefs that he "hated Britain". As you yourself put it

quote:
It's a strange equation - "not approving of certain institutions" = "hating the country that has them." If I hated Britain, I'd not care.

or, the expression I used, the Daily Mail was being naive and simplistic to make such an inference.

But it could be argued it is equally naive and simplistic to construe from Mr Miliband's wartime service that he did not argue for the overthrow not only of the monarchy but also of the government, parliamentary democracy and the maintenance of peace-time armed forces when, in fact, these things are on record.

Yes, anyone - you, Mr Miliband, whoever - has the right to view the monarchy (and you said the fact that there are unelected peers in the House of Lords) with contempt. {BTW do you mean just hereditaries or are you including the Life Peers?]

But Mr Miliband went further and included ALL of Parliament.

He was also very anti the Labour Party and much of British trades unionism, seeing the former as a sell-out of socialist principles and the latter as parochial and only dedicated to the advancement of their members, rather than the whole proletariat.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Claiming the Daily Mail is naïve is ridiculous. They know exactly what they said and what it meant - that to disagree with the Daily Mail's view of what is good in Britain is to hate Britain.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK...so let me get this straight...Our Lady's response to the Annunciation was to thank God that in 1900 years Her son's teaching would sort of kind of inspire a political philosophy called Socialism that might eventually "send the rich away empty" and not to what Jesus actually accomplished?

Yeah...that's sound exegesis.

She was echoing the prophets in longing for a Messiah who would introduce the jubilee cancelling all debts, give a banquet for the staring etc. Is this merely for some sort of afterlife? The prophets were concerned for the here and now and Jesus urged us to pray for God's kingdom ON EARTH as in heaven

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Arethosemyfeet: perhaps disingenuous would have been a better word.

But equally I think Ed Miliband is being less than honest in his attempt to use the Mail's disgraceful antics as justification for a rant about press regulation.

In any case, I thought the left (the British left, at any rate) was forever wedded to the idea of free speech?

Personally, I deplore the language being bandied about by the Mail , and is nothing else they have weakened the cause for a free press to a fair degree. I know what they're saying is vile, but in a free country with an uncensored press we must defend their right to say it.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think you'll find that many on the left have held that free speech has limits - hence the restrictions on inciting racial hatred et al. Unrestricted free speech has generally been the rallying cry of the far right - UKIP and the BNP defending their right to be obnoxious bigots. There is a balance to be struck and the provable falsehoods propagated without remorse by both the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press do call into question whether their owners are fit and proper persons. That doesn't restrict those owners saying what they like, only whether they can use their money to buy a megaphone for their opinions.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I'm fascinated by the process by which the more a position I have formerly espoused is contrasted, the more I repent in sackcloth and ashes of ever having had it and recoil too far perhaps before I embrace, forgive, understand the person I was.

Anadromously someone used the expression 'the politics of envy' with regard to socialism. Or they might as well have done. I have.

Then I read this yesterday:

Why has it taken me so long to become a Christian socialist?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Claiming the Daily Mail is naïve is ridiculous. They know exactly what they said and what it meant - that to disagree with the Daily Mail's view of what is good in Britain is to hate Britain.

Yes, it seems rather naive to call the Daily Mail naive! Surely, they are beginning the long build-up to the next election, with an attack on Miliband. There will be more of the same.

Many people have also pointed out the curious irony, that it's the DM which seems to hate so many aspects of modern Britain!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Love the idea of being someone returning to fresh water from salt!

The article was very interesting, although I note that it used exclusively US examples; but I have little doubt that much of the experience over there will have been replicated here, if the research is ever done to find out.

But I think there is a danger that in looking at the very worst of what the private sector can do and then translating that to be typical behaviour across the board we (a) ignore those private sector outfits that do operate responsibly and produce decent results, and (b) we then extrapolate from this that public sector operations must, by virtue of being state-run, be better, cheaper, more cost effective - in short, more virtuous.

I have long thought that there is a yawning gap in administration in the UK: we might do well to copy the French grands ecoles for administration, rather than just patting ourselves on the back that the British civil service is without parallel.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

L'organist. I'll get me coat. I just meant upstream on the thread but you leapt to the beautiful analogy for me of going from right to left or rather from the myth of capitalism being more equitable than socialism as going from salt (brackish!) water to fresh, I infer.

Dash it all but there's some clever people here.

[ 06. October 2013, 14:35: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry Martin - I'm an idiot. Or perhaps its just that its an age since I had a holiday and I'm thinking fondly of hours spent casting for salmon and sea trout on the Tamar...

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But equally I think Ed Miliband is being less than honest in his attempt to use the Mail's disgraceful antics as justification for a rant about press regulation.

In any case, I thought the left (the British left, at any rate) was forever wedded to the idea of free speech?

Now what did George Orwell say about animals being equal? Oh yes, it's okay for the Grauniad to hack arms dealers' mobile phones, or even for the Mirror or the People to do it to Z-list celebrities, but it becomes the subject of manufactured outrage once it's the *shriek* MURDOCH PRESS *shriek*.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Unrestricted free speech has generally been the rallying cry of the far right - UKIP and the BNP defending their right to be obnoxious bigots.

The BNP is a left-wing party. Their manifesto is full of policies about nationalization and protectionism. As Lord Tebbit once described them, they are Labour with racism.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is a balance to be struck and the provable falsehoods propagated without remorse by both the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press do call into question whether their owners are fit and proper persons. That doesn't restrict those owners saying what they like, only whether they can use their money to buy a megaphone for their opinions.

No, there isn't a balance to be struck against a free press, just because they publish things Ed Miliband doesn't like. If he feels the Daily Mail has libelled him, he should instruct a lawyer and sue them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

To say that nationalization is left-wing is truly bizarre. George Bush had an orgy of it just before he left office.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Unrestricted free speech has generally been the rallying cry of the far right - UKIP and the BNP defending their right to be obnoxious bigots.
The BNP is a left-wing party. Their manifesto is full of policies about nationalization and protectionism. As Lord Tebbit once described them, they are Labour with racism.

The BNP is protectionist but it is no longer a state corporatist party. It aims to make the city subordinate to the government (which, notably, Japan does) and make Britain self-sufficient in food production. It supports small enterprises against corporations and doesn't, as far as I can tell, advocate nationalisation. That doesn't look leftist to me, although in opposing the current globalised and corporate economy it isn't economically liberal either. On the social policy front, of which freedom of speech is one part, the BNP is as consistently right wing and authoritarian as one can possibly be.

[ 06. October 2013, 16:09: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Sioni Sais, I don't think it's worth it. pererin has already made it clear they think that the Nazis were a left wing party, so clearly they're going to think the same of their modern British wing. Fascism was and remains a right wing ideology - the merger of the corporation and the state is a major feature - and it is founded on the differences between nations and races being the most important thing rather than, as left wing thought holds, that class distinctions are the strongest determinant of interest.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, most fascist movements seem to advocate corporatism - the absorption into the state of things like trade unions. And this might then lead to some nationalizations, which is why equating that with the left, is so surreal.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by quetzalcotl:
What's your source that this is the only evidence about Miliband's thoughts about the Prague Spring?

I don't know a thing about Ralph Miliband. Still, if Ralph Miliband was so opposed to the Prague Spring, why does this one letter get quoted? Shouldn't there be something more public? If there isn't, I can only conclude he didn't shout his opposition very loudly. Perhaps because he really didn't want to embarrass the Soviet Union?

quote:
originally posted by leo:
She was echoing the prophets in longing for a Messiah who would introduce the jubilee cancelling all debts, give a banquet for the staring etc. Is this merely for some sort of afterlife? The prophets were concerned for the here and now and Jesus urged us to pray for God's kingdom ON EARTH as in heaven

Social justice is one of several themes in the OT prophets. What the Christian Left does is take the language of the prophets and apply it to their own political beliefs? In actuality, what the prophets say has little in common with Socialism. For instance, I could make a strong case from the prophets that anything over a 10% flat tax is onerous. Again, the Christian Reconstructionists are the only ones who take the idea of biblical government seriously and their ideas are bat shit crazy. The Left is only interested in the Bible to the extent it can be used to support Left Wing ideology. As the OP demonstrates, if the meaning of the Bible has to be twisted in order to justify the Left and demonize the Right, then the actual Gospel must be subverted so the Gospeley can be spread.

As to the Our Father, we pray for the Kingdom to come because we can't make the kingdom come. We can only begin to describe what the Kingdom coming in it's fullness will be like. I certainly don't trust Left Wing activists with either the task of envisioning the Kingdom Come or making it happen.

If the BVM expected Jesus to forgive people of their monetary debts, she must have been disappointed. Turns out all He did was take upon Himself a debt that He didn't owe and we couldn't pay so that God and humanity could be reconciled. Poor Jesus, he did that and all his mother really wanted was a generous bankruptcy law. I suspect she wasn't the only one disappointed that Jesus didn't become a political Messiah. Apparently, some remain disappointed to this day.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Beeswax Altar wrote:

I don't know a thing about Ralph Miliband. Still, if Ralph Miliband was so opposed to the Prague Spring, why does this one letter get quoted? Shouldn't there be something more public? If there isn't, I can only conclude he didn't shout his opposition very loudly. Perhaps because he really didn't want to embarrass the Soviet Union?

No, he was opposed to the Soviet reaction to the Prague Spring.

Why does this letter get quoted? Because it's easily available online, is why! It tends to be difficult to access books.

If you would like to pursue further, I suggest you start a thread on Miliband Senior, and I would be happy to contribute.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If the BVM expected Jesus to forgive people of their monetary debts, she must have been disappointed. Turns out all He did was take upon Himself a debt that He didn't owe and we couldn't pay so that God and humanity could be reconciled. Poor Jesus, he did that and all his mother really wanted was a generous bankruptcy law. I suspect she wasn't the only one disappointed that Jesus didn't become a political Messiah. Apparently, some remain disappointed to this day.

Anselm, bordering on PSA - spiritualist away an incarnational faith.

So all the RC teaching in things like 'The Common Good' and all the (albeit sometimes paternalist) work of anglo catholic priests in slum parishes was a deviation from giving people pie in the sky when they die.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I have 2 newspapers Daily Mail and 'i'. The Daily Mail makes all the running in Politics. Stories they carry one day everyone is talking about the next. 'i' is usually at least 2 days behind with a considered opinion. The Milliband story is an excellent example of how the Mail choses the Political story fro that week. Do you think anyone who reads it believes it ? As Ed keeps referring to his Father as his main influence in life, its worth investigating what his father believed and the period he believed it in. Interesting but thats it. Will I therefore vote Conservative ? No - it depends on whether Labour will scrap the incredibly expensive High Speed 2 railway. If so they get my vote. Nothing to do with ed's father at all.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To say that nationalization is left-wing is truly bizarre. George Bush had an orgy of it just before he left office.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Moo

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quetzlcoatl wrote:

quote:
Yes, most fascist movements seem to advocate corporatism - the absorption into the state of things like trade unions. And this might then lead to some nationalizations, which is why equating that with the left, is so surreal.

This book sums it up nicely.

Basically, Paxton says that fascism was a pro-capitalist movement, but with the purpose of using revolutionary rhetoric and populist economic policies to take support away from the legitimate left, while leaving the underlying economic hierarchy intact. It gained reluctant support from the ruling class largely because the more openly elitist conservative parties were unable to sell their programs to the public, in an era of widespread democratization.

So yes, there was leftish sounding rhetoric and economics from the fascists, but the whole point was to be anti-left and not make any major changes in terms of who owns what in society. Apart from the left-wing rhetoric and populist economics, it is essentially an anti-left ideology.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quetzlcoatl wrote:

quote:
Instead of deporting them back to their countries of origin we will deport them to places like Canada and Scandinavia. They will all be welcome with open arms for sure. And, if they aren't, then it must be because residents of those countries are a bunch of racist xenophobes. Right?

Actually, as long as those immigrants were potential conservative voters, the current Conservative government of Canada probably wouldn't mind taking them in. The Conservatives are right now trying to build themselves a permanent majority, partly on the basis of right-wing immigrant voters in southern Ontario and a few other places.

Maclean's magazine

I'm not sure how successful this strategy has been, I think some stats I saw showed that Kenney had managed to increase the Conservative vote among non-western immigrants by about 5%, but it's still only about 25% of that bloc(don't quote me on these numbers). Sort of impressive, I guess, considering that this current Conservative government is rooted in the old Reform party, which pandered to anti-immigration sentiment as one of its main themes.

That said, there is still a pretty sizable anti-immigrant sentiment at the grassroots level, so yes, your scenario of rejected American immigrants coming en masse to Canada would NOT be met with open arms. But at present, the anti-immigrant voters have no other party to support, so the Conservatives can probably continue their current strategy without totally alienating their old-stock supporters.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

One more thing...

Kaplan wrote:

quote:
“Right-wingers” can demonise refugees, but in Australia after the Vietnam War it was the left which was most hostile to Indo-Chinese asylum-seekers.

Was this because the asylum-seekers(the so-called boat people, I assume) were regarded as right-wing supporters of South Vietnam?

If so, I'm curious. Were leftists openly giving speeches along the lines of "We don't want these people coming into Australia!" I know it was the left in Australia that had pushed for whites-only immigration(for economic reasons), but I woulda thought that openly xenophobic rhetoric would have been taboo among leftists by the 1970s.

I was just a kid at the time, but as I recall, the "boat people" who came to Canada were generally subject to the same sort of anti-refugee hostlity that was directed against anyone else with dark skin and funny names. I don't think the right-wingers, anyway, cut them much slack because they had fought for "the good guys" in the Vietnam War. And while I'm sure most leftists weren't overjoyed at their politics, I doubt many were openly calling for them to be sent away.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The objection of the left to the Vietnamese boat peoples of the 70s and 80s was precisely because they seen as being supporters of the old South Vietnamese regimes, and therefore of the right. On the same type of analysis, there was a difference in perception between those who fled Eastern Europe in the years immediately after WW II, and the Hungarians who left after 56. The left here was much more welcoming of those who had lived under a communist regime and then fled.

Paxton presents a very compelling argument. A quibble I have with it is that I don't think he sufficiently allows for the strongly dirigiste nature of the Italian economy under Mussolini, but that's a small point.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Arethosemyfeet: perhaps disingenuous would have been a better word.

A better word? "Naive" and "disingenuous" are antonyms.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quetzlcoatl wrote:

quote:
Yes, most fascist movements seem to advocate corporatism - the absorption into the state of things like trade unions. And this might then lead to some nationalizations, which is why equating that with the left, is so surreal.

This book sums it up nicely.

Basically, Paxton says that fascism was a pro-capitalist movement, but with the purpose of using revolutionary rhetoric and populist economic policies to take support away from the legitimate left, while leaving the underlying economic hierarchy intact. It gained reluctant support from the ruling class largely because the more openly elitist conservative parties were unable to sell their programs to the public, in an era of widespread democratization.

So yes, there was leftish sounding rhetoric and economics from the fascists, but the whole point was to be anti-left and not make any major changes in terms of who owns what in society. Apart from the left-wing rhetoric and populist economics, it is essentially an anti-left ideology.

Yes, two obvious signs of a fascist or extreme right-wing government, are that trade unions are either banned or incorporated into the state; and other left-wing or workers' organizations are banned or incorporated. Thus, left wing parties are usually banned.

But there may be an early phase when such measures are hidden, so as to gain support.

There may also be extreme punishments of left-wing people or opposition figures - for example, in Francoist Spain, thousands were executed after the Civil War was over.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I read recently in a book called The Appeal of Fascism * that around 100,000 were killed in Spain after the Civil War. That's many fewer than those killed in Germany and a small proportion of Stalin's purges of the mid-thirties alone, but probably more than in Italy, Portugal, Austria and the East European right-wing dictatorships of the time put together. It also needs to be compared to the 500,000 probably killed in Indonesia in 1965, where the population was over 6 times that of Spain.

If you add up the numbers, I'd say that in the twentieth century dictatorships of the left killed more than those of the right. Not so sure how relevant that all is to this thread though.

*Lost somewhere in my study, so I can't tell you the author.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
One more thing...

Kaplan wrote:

quote:
“Right-wingers” can demonise refugees, but in Australia after the Vietnam War it was the left which was most hostile to Indo-Chinese asylum-seekers.
Was this because the asylum-seekers(the so-called boat people, I assume) were regarded as right-wing supporters of South Vietnam?

Any Vietnamese ideologically unsound enough try to escape living under neo-Stalinism by setting to sea in a leaky boat obviously deserved to drown, get raped and murdered by pirates, or die from hunger and thirst.

quote:
If so, I'm curious. Were leftists openly giving speeches along the lines of "We don't want these people coming into Australia!" I know it was the left in Australia that had pushed for whites-only immigration(for economic reasons), but I woulda thought that openly xenophobic rhetoric would have been taboo among leftists by the 1970s.

Let's go straight to the top.

Gough Whitlam, Labor prime minister 1972-5, stated, "I'm not having hundreds of fucking Vietnamese Balts coming into this country".

The reference to “Balts” was possibly connected to protests which migrants from the Baltic states had made following the Whitlam government’s recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in accordance with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
two obvious signs of a fascist or extreme right-wing government, are that trade unions are either banned or incorporated into the state; and other left-wing or workers' organizations are banned or incorporated. Thus, left wing parties are usually banned.

Precisely what happens under an extreme left-wing government.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Paxton wrote:

quote:
Gough Whitlam, Labor prime minister 1972-5, stated, "I'm not having hundreds of fucking Vietnamese Balts coming into this country".

The reference to “Balts” was possibly connected to protests which migrants from the Baltic states had made following the Whitlam government’s recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in accordance with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Yes, I found an article about that, which included the quote, after I had made my post. That was some pretty nasty invective coming from the Labor leadership of the day.

Gee D wrote:

quote:
On the same type of analysis, there was a difference in perception between those who fled Eastern Europe in the years immediately after WW II, and the Hungarians who left after 56. The left here was much more welcoming of those who had lived under a communist regime and then fled.

In Canada, at least where I'm from, the Ukranian, Polish, etc communities tended toward strong anti-Communism as well, and generally voted accordingly. I don't think there was a lot of demonization of them by the left, however.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Well, I was not really around in the 40s to pick up the feeling, but I have spoken with my father. He said it was not demonisation, save on the extreme left, but a feeling that those who fled quickly were those who had something to fear. There was also the competition for jobs and other scarce resources. You have to remember that it was the Chifley Labour Govt which led the migration drive in the immediate post-war years, and also that the policy was continued under Menzies.

I can well remember the Hungarian uprising, and again with the exception of the far left, there was a solid wave of sympathy for the Hungarians. Many of their Olympic team sought and were given refugee status.

I had forgotten that comment by Gough, but it was out of character for him.

[ 07. October 2013, 07:34: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I read recently in a book called The Appeal of Fascism * that around 100,000 were killed in Spain after the Civil War. That's many fewer than those killed in Germany and a small proportion of Stalin's purges of the mid-thirties alone, but probably more than in Italy, Portugal, Austria and the East European right-wing dictatorships of the time put together. It also needs to be compared to the 500,000 probably killed in Indonesia in 1965, where the population was over 6 times that of Spain.

If you add up the numbers, I'd say that in the twentieth century dictatorships of the left killed more than those of the right. Not so sure how relevant that all is to this thread though.

*Lost somewhere in my study, so I can't tell you the author.

Well, the fascist regimes tended to be supported by the Catholic Church! Franco, Salazar, Mussolini, at any rate.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Looks like you have a choice between the RCC and secularism. Other Christian denominations have played a part in repression (what was that one in apartheid-era South Africa?) but not, I think, to the same extent.

The degree to which refugees are welcomed is certainly politically motivated and the nation or regime people are leaving, their language and skin colour all play a part.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

You mean like that well-known Nazi-sympathiser, Maximilian Kolbe?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the fascist regimes tended to be supported by the Catholic Church! Franco, Salazar, Mussolini, at any rate.

I'm far from sure that I'd call Salazar a fascist. He was more in the line of Dollfuss, Schuschsnigg, Horthy and those in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland in being right-wing authoritarian without any real ideology. Regimes of that sort tended to be supported by the Catholic Church and the main reason for that was a fear of communism taking over - as it did eventually in the Warsaw Pact countries and very nearly did in Portugal.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You mean like that well-known Nazi-sympathiser, Maximilian Kolbe?

Some Catholics, Reformed and Lutherans alike opposed Hitler, and some of the most prominent Catholic opponents somehow survived in their high church posts. I don't think you can say that the Catholic Church supported the Nazis, although some Catholic individuals definitely did.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the fascist regimes tended to be supported by the Catholic Church! Franco, Salazar, Mussolini, at any rate.
I'm far from sure that I'd call Salazar a fascist. He was more in the line of Dollfuss, Schuschsnigg, Horthy and those in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland in being right-wing authoritarian without any real ideology. Regimes of that sort tended to be supported by the Catholic Church and the main reason for that was a fear of communism taking over - as it did eventually in the Warsaw Pact countries and very nearly did in Portugal.

Yes, interesting. I remember asking Spanish Catholics this question, and some of them talked about 'la horda roja', the red horde, which must be kept at bay. You used to find this inscribed on monuments in Spain, 'killed by the red horde', and so on, but I don't know if they have been taken down.

I suppose at that time it seemed to many like a straight choice between the godless hordes and the safety of 'el caudillo'. However, Spain seems to have found a middle road today.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Society is less polarised now...for the moment at least...

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

The problem with right-wing and left-wing is that, at their extremes, they're virtually indistinguishable. Both extremes believe that ideas are more important than people, with the obvious consequences.

There was some discussion upthread about the Magnificat. Obviously, of course, the prophecy that Luke puts onto Our Lady's lips isn't a warning for the right wing or the left wing: it's a warning for the proud, the rich, and the powerful.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, and there's no doubt that there were many needless acts of cruelty and savagery against religious, just as there were against the people of Guernica and others supporting the legitimate government. Casals, in some memoirs, talks of preventing the murder of a simple village priest.

The Spanish success in making the transition to a modern democratic state is due to Franco's insistence that he be succeeded by Juan Carlos. Franco cannot have understood that the King would not have continued his policies, nor the depth of HM's commitment to parliamentary democracy. Portugal was much more touch and go, Caetano lacking the vision that Juan Carlos possessed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Looks like you have a choice between the RCC and secularism. Other Christian denominations have played a part in repression (what was that one in apartheid-era South Africa?) but not, I think, to the same extent.

The degree to which refugees are welcomed is certainly politically motivated and the nation or regime people are leaving, their language and skin colour all play a part.

Are you thinking of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa and the Church of England in South Africa, both of which supported apartheid. CESA should not be confused with the Church of the Province of South Africa, which was a strong opponent of the old regime.

Sadly, the political debate here has led to the casting out of refugees and very limited adherence to our Treaty obligations. Both major groupings must bear the blame for this. In this context, it's worth noting that around 90% of those arriving here over the last decade claiming refugee status, have been successful in being accepted as such by departmental officers. Very few of those not being granted status in that fashion have been successful on appeal through administrative or legal process.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the fascist regimes tended to be supported by the Catholic Church! Franco, Salazar, Mussolini, at any rate.
I'm far from sure that I'd call Salazar a fascist. He was more in the line of Dollfuss, Schuschsnigg, Horthy and those in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland in being right-wing authoritarian without any real ideology. Regimes of that sort tended to be supported by the Catholic Church and the main reason for that was a fear of communism taking over - as it did eventually in the Warsaw Pact countries and very nearly did in Portugal.

I'd actually add Franco to Salazar if we're taking that line. Franco's ideology could best be summed up as Anti Masonic, pro RC authoritarian without any other underpinning.

The Falange were useful to him in the civil war, but put firmly in their box by the forced merger into FET y de las JONS at the close when they represented a challenge to him. Post-war of course, he was adamant that the regime was not fascist but National Catholic.

Of course, you can argue about how much that was expediency, but the FET/JONS was muzzled even further by being subsumed into the Movimiento with the regime approved trades unions.

This lack of ideology can be most easily demonstrated by the degree to which the regime was hijacked by the technocrats in the 1950s and 60s, who basically built the modern Spanish economy. To that extent, I think Francoism is probably a middle way between Salazar and something-else, maybe Heathite/Wilsonian corportism/managerialism but successful and with a Civil Guard? I don't mean that flippantly by the way. I'm not sure I'd rush to describe Francoism as Fascism though.

I'm not defending him (obviously) but he was a master at blowing with the wind.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Or perhaps Gaullism? That had an emphasis on de Gaulle as leader to be revered, the dirigisme which had dominated French economic policy from WW II, and a heavy ideology of national destiny. Remember Vive le Quebec Libre?*

*Long live Free Quebec, almost a battle-cry uttered by de Gaulle during a State Visit to Canada.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gee D wrote:

quote:
I'm far from sure that I'd call Salazar a fascist. He was more in the line of Dollfuss, Schuschsnigg, Horthy and those in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland in being right-wing authoritarian without any real ideology. Regimes of that sort tended to be supported by the Catholic Church and the main reason for that was a fear of communism taking over - as it did eventually in the Warsaw Pact countries and very nearly did in Portugal.

Paxton, whom we were discussing earlier, argues that Franco, Salazar, and for that matter the Japanese militarists were not fascist, because they lacked the populism and the revolutionary rhetoric that characterized the Italian and German regimes. For the most part, they were content to let society exist pretty much as it always had, rather than whip the public into a frenzy of populist excitement. The Japanese regime actually crushed a fascist uprising, if I recall correctly.

Another interesting thing is that the Nazis preferred allying with those traditionalist authoritarians, rather than the local fascist outfits.

quote:
Remember Vive le Quebec Libre?*

The ironic thing there is that that speech put De Gaulle, perhaps unwittingly, into a de facto alliance with the emerging Quebec sovereignty movement, which politically occupied the section of the political spectrum running from centre-left(the PQ) to far-left(the FLQ and assorted other groups). People who would have been on the barricades against De Gaulle in 1968.

And my understanding has always been that in France itself, the Socialists were much less enthused about Quebec independence. I remember Mitterand making a visit to Canada, and doing a belated rebuttal to De Gaulle by intoning something like "Vive Le Canada" while addressing the House Of Commons.

[ 07. October 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Salazar was, I think, a somewhat curious and contradictory individual. As you rightly say, he espoused a strong Catholic authoritarian model - this actually caused a strong backlash against the RCC after 1974, especially in the Alentejo which was almost feudal in its society and in which "far left" politics had long been festering. There is also anecdotal evidence (certainly from the African colonies) that Priests acted as agents for the PIDE (secret police) passing back to them any "political" confessions.

He himself lived, I understand, modestly - no ambitious palaces like Caeucescu or Mobutu (Zaire); his backing of "Uma Casa Portuguesa" ("A (little) Portuguese house") for everyone reflected both his family model and his nationalism.

A friend of mine - a retired Labour MP - was on a cultural visit to Portugal with some young people back in about 1953. One day they were joined by an unassuming man who chatted very amicably with them. It was in fact Salazar.

Whether he lost touch with reality in the latter part of his reign is hard to judge - it often happens with dictators, surrounded by "yes-men". Certainly an America friend of mine, resident in Lisbon, witnessed the brutal suppression of a political demonstration in the city in late 1973. The regime also tried to improve conditions in the African colonies in the late 60s/early 70s, without seemingly realising that Empire had gone for good. Of course Salazar himself had died in 1970 and Caetano had taken over.

One must remember that Salazar came to power in (I think) the 1920s; he was able to form a stable government after years of political instability following the end of the Monarchy. When the "Estado Novo" fell there were years of further instability with constant changes of Government and a multitude of political parties on the far Left (I know, I was there); it was amazing in fact that things settled down as quickly as they did.

In later years Salazar was, I think, genuinely mourned by many in a way never accorded to Hitler or Mussolini.

[ 07. October 2013, 13:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

The Japanese regime actually crushed a fascist uprising, if I recall correctly.

Another interesting thing is that the Nazis preferred allying with those traditionalist authoritarians, rather than the local fascist outfits.

Indeed, and Franco's efforts in the civil war were strongly aligned with the Japanese militarists. It sounds convenient in hindsight, but the Spanish army really did go to war "to preserve the republic" (and the Church) from what they thought was going to be a Soviet takeover. Part of what made the Spanish Civil War so bitter was the fact that it was truly ideological on both sides.

I think the Nazis (probably rightly) saw the authoritarians as sounder allies on the whole, partly because they weren't fomenting revolutionary turmoil within their borders and might actually be able to contribute something. IIRC Hitler had to send the SS into Croatia to calm the Ustase down, because even he thought they were getting carried away. "Luckily" for Franco, Spain was sufficiently broken in 1939 to make it impossible for him to get sucked into the Axis - and one shouldn't really underestimate the calibre of the diplomatic game the Spanish played between 39 and 45; they did very well to stay out of the war and its consequences....

All of which eliptically gets us back on topic to the question, which is that Franco and his regime was definitely Roman Catholic and Christian in their own eyes (and that of the Vatican) so, loosely, er, yes...

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If the BVM expected Jesus to forgive people of their monetary debts, she must have been disappointed. Turns out all He did was take upon Himself a debt that He didn't owe and we couldn't pay so that God and humanity could be reconciled. Poor Jesus, he did that and all his mother really wanted was a generous bankruptcy law. I suspect she wasn't the only one disappointed that Jesus didn't become a political Messiah. Apparently, some remain disappointed to this day.
Anselm, bordering on PSA - spiritualist away an incarnational faith.

So all the RC teaching in things like 'The Common Good' and all the (albeit sometimes paternalist) work of anglo catholic priests in slum parishes was a deviation from giving people pie in the sky when they die.

The idea of humanity owing a debt which Jesus paid is implied in every theory of the atonement including Christus Victor. Is it incompatible with an incarnational faith? Depends on how you define incarnational. It is perfectly compatible with the doctrine of the Incarnation taught by the Church for 2,000 years. However, much more recently, liberal Christians have espoused a definition of incarnational that has nothing much to do with the Incarnation. I've heard people espousing this view of incarnational actually deny the Incarnation. I have no clue if the idea of Jesus paying a debt humanity owes is compatible with that kind of incarnational faith nor do I care.

There is a name for a political philosophy based on Roman Catholic social teaching and it isn't Socialism. The Roman Catholic Church has never been and is not now a fan of Socialism. By the way, I've actually read the encyclicals in question. I disagree with the Anglo-Catholic Socialists of the 19th Century about the connection between Christianity and Socialism. However, most Socialists would also disagree with them about the necessity of the sacraments in being Socialist. I imagine the Anglo-Catholic Socialists would be appalled by the politics of both the Right and the Left.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
people pie in the sky when they die.
The idea of humanity owing a debt which Jesus paid is implied in every theory of the atonement including Christus Victor. Is it incompatible with an incarnational faith? Depends on how you define incarnational. It is perfectly compatible with the doctrine of the Incarnation taught by the Church for 2,000 years. However, much more recently, liberal Christians have espoused a definition of incarnational that has nothing much to do with the Incarnation. I've heard people espousing this view of incarnational actually deny the Incarnation.

I don't think that is true about atonement theories other than Anselm and would need some quotations to convince me.

Also about the incarnation being denied by those who see incarnation, rather than atonement, as the main thing.

Fixed UBB code - Gwai

[ 07. October 2013, 18:08: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I'll respectfully decline the offer to play that game, thank you very much.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hmmm. You can't put up so you ... ?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

If I really wanted to continue that tangent, Martin, I would continue it in Hell. I don't. So, I'll just decline to play the game.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Capitalism and socialism are both the bastard children of Christianity (John Ralston Saul). In extreme forms neither can be truly said to be Christian. I started the thread in part because the centre is vilified today and called left, even though it is not the the left. The right wing has continued to become extreme and used this manifestly dishonest argument to advance an agenda that seems rather clearly to victimise the weakest and the most vulnerable: the poor, the uneducated. It has also increased the gap between rich and poor in all of the G8 countries. Someone tell me how that is Christian? Please.

I grieve for my country, which has been caught in a Conservative, American-British-emulating web since the Mulroney era (corresponds with Thatcher and Reagan). We are so dependent and interwoven with the economy of the USA first, that we have no ability to set our own policies. And our current Conservative government has gotten rid of the Progressives, and its classically liberal* basis.

*if you read "classically liberal" as "liberal" as used as an epithet within the American system, then you need to have a look at what the word means outside of that narrow context; it does not mean what you think it does.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

*if you read "classically liberal" as "liberal" as used as an epithet within the American system, then you need to have a look at what the word means outside of that narrow context; it does not mean what you think it does.

As in the case of the term “right-wing”, the meaning of “liberal” has to be inferred from the speaker and the context.

“Liberal”, in America at least, can mean left-wing, right across the spectrum from moderate welfare statists to communist outliers.

“Liberal” can also mean the opposite, ie a commitment to minimal government interference, especially in economic matters.

Sometimes it is used in a relative sense, so that some extremists can be described as more or less liberal or conservative than their fellow fascists, Islamists, communists or whatever.

In the West, the overwhelming majority of the population, ie right across the centre left and centre right, are politically liberal in the historical sense of the word, but will accuse anyone who disagrees with them within that broad spectrum of betraying liberal principles, because (outside the US) the term “liberal” is usually a general expression of approval regardless of what is actually meant by it, in the same way that “right-wing” is most often an empty expression of distaste.

Those who describe themselves as social democrats are no less liberal than those who call themselves liberal democrats; both believe in the ideal of freedom, but the former are more committed to positive, and the latter to negative, liberty.

[ 08. October 2013, 06:20: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

This thread has moved on from the tangent while I slept and worked, I'll leave it there.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
I started the thread in part because the centre is vilified today and called left, even though it is not the the left.

The center isn't on the left because it's the center. However, what is the center today wasn't the center 30 years ago and won't be the center 30 years from now. Right, left, and center are all relative terms. You complain that conservatives are more right wing than they were prior to 1980. On the other hand, conservatives aren't near as right wing as they were say prior to World War II. The center shifts.

So, yes, you are on the Left. The United States has way more than double the combined population of Canada and the UK. We are more conservative. So, if you put the three countries on a political spectrum, conservative Democrats and the more moderate Tories make up the Center.

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
It has also increased the gap between rich and poor in all of the G8 countries. Someone tell me how that is Christian? Please.

Scripture demands the poor be treated fairly and not oppressively. Poor is also a relative term. Compared to the plight of the poor and oppressed in the ancient world, the "poor" in G8 countries are doing wonderful. The "poor" in G8 countries are only doing poorly when compared to the wealthy in G8 countries.

You would be hard pressed to make a case for income equality from scripture. In the OT, God often blessed his followers with prosperity. Consider Abraham. Abraham was worried he wouldn't have an heir and would have to leave all his riches to his slave. Now, if there was biblical support for income equality or an estate tax, this would be the place to find it. God has the opportunity to chastise Abraham, tell him he didn't build that, and command him to leave all of his riches to his servants. As we know, God doesn't do that. That's just one example off the top of my head.

Conservatives quote scripture too. The way they use scripture is no more or less valid than the way the Christian Left uses it. The only difference is when the Christian Right does it they get accused of violating the wall of separation between church and state. Personally, I'd wish both sides would just vote their conscience and leave the prooftexts at home.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"Luckily" for Franco, Spain was sufficiently broken in 1939 to make it impossible for him to get sucked into the Axis - and one shouldn't really underestimate the calibre of the diplomatic game the Spanish played between 39 and 45; they did very well to stay out of the war and its consequences....

Hitler described his failed attempt to get Franco to join the Axis, at Hendaye in 1940, as like “getting three or four teeth pulled”.

Poor old Spain was in a no-win situation, with either Franco, or the Soviet-aligned communists (supported by Picasso, which means the putative humanism of his painting Guernica has to be taken with a grain of salt) as the only possible winners of the civil war.

As described in Orwell’s Homage To Catalonia, and portrayed in Ken Loach’s Land And Freedom, a romantic, grass-roots, popular communalism did not stand a chance.

While Franco’s murderous regime was repulsive, Spain would probably have been no better off as a Stalinist satellite, and from the point of view of the outcome of WWII, Franco’s intransigence toward Hitler was preferable to a communist Spain which Hitler would simply have invaded and controlled, causing all sorts of military problems for the Allies.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

No Prophet wrote:

quote:
And our current Conservative government has gotten rid of the Progressives, and its classically liberal* basis.

*if you read "classically liberal" as "liberal" as used as an epithet within the American system, then you need to have a look at what the word means outside of that narrow context; it does not mean what you think it does.

As far as I have always known, "classical liberal" means liberalism in the Lockean sense, not the social-democratic sense that you seem to be using it here. In other words, Thatcherite, or what we now call "neo-liberalism".

The Canadian Progressives who, via John Bracken, gave the PC party their adjective were not classical liberals. Wikipedia describes them as "agrairan" and "social democratic".

Progressive Party Of Canada

I think what the Conservatives lost with their Thatcherization would be more accurately described as Toryism".

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :

So the centre has shifted and the right is more 'right' than thirty years ago?

Rightio.

Many of the social policies the left is pushing these days weren't even on the scale 30 years ago.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Many of the social policies the left is pushing these days weren't even on the scale 30 years ago.

Well, right wing doesn't necessarily mean socially conservative or authoritarian. I agree with the analysis that says there are two distinct scales (in fact, there could well be more) by which you can describe a person's or a party's political stance.

You've got the economic scale - left wing (high tax, high spend; redistributive policies etc.) and right wing (low tax, small government, flatter tax rates). But you've also got a social scale, with libertarian, live-and-let-live views at one end and authoritarian, greater state control at the other.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So the centre has shifted and the right is more 'right' than thirty years ago?

Rightio.

Many of the social policies the left is pushing these days weren't even on the scale 30 years ago.

Would same-sex marriage be an example? If so David Cameron's predominantly Conservative government has put this through the UK parliament and that's hardly a leftist government.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Waht South Coast Kevin said. It's confusing to describe social attitudes in terms of 'left' or 'right', though perhaps there is more correlation across the pond between conservatism on the DH issues and economic/political conservatism. As Cameron's government demonstrates, this isn't really the case in the UK. Though it was not long ago: Section 28 and all that.

What does puzzle me are the 'small state' economic liberals who want to keep government at bay, but who are anything but liberal when it comes to who sleeps with who or whether women are fully human. Does not compute.

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So the centre has shifted and the right is more 'right' than thirty years ago?

Rightio.

Many of the social policies the left is pushing these days weren't even on the scale 30 years ago.
Would same-sex marriage be an example? If so David Cameron's predominantly Conservative government has put this through the UK parliament and that's hardly a leftist government.

What you said only further illustrates that the political centre has not simply shifted right over the last 30 years.

In many respects, especially in aspects of social policy, both the left and right have shifted liberalwards.

[ 08. October 2013, 12:57: Message edited by: Pommie Mick ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Who doesn't recognize women as fully human? I'm not aware of any US political party that doesn't recognize women as fully human. On one hand, you agree with South Coast Kevin that social issues aren't on the same spectrum but then say you are surprised that some who believe in small government are social conservatives.

In fact, the right in the US is split on the issue. Libertarians want the government out of the bedroom and the pocketbook but can be found on both sides of the abortion issue. Conservatives like Rick Perry (as close as the US gets to anything with a remote resemblance to Christian Demococray) have no problem with a powerful central government just want a smaller one. The technocratic Republicans and Neoconservatives are pretty much ambivalent about all culture war issues but give lip service to appease social conservative voters. Paleoconservatives prefer the Republican Party prior to Dwight Eisenhower. So, they hate the New Deal, free trade, immigration, and foreign wars (preferring instead to fight the culture wars at home). The majority of conservatives want a less powerful federal government because they see our current federal government as being unconstitutional. So, for them, state governments should have broader powers than the federal government. All of the Dead Horse and most other important issues should be decided at the state level. For instance, Mitt Romney really wasn't being hypocritical for supporting universal health care in Massachusetts but wanting to repeal the same basic law at the federal level.

If asked, all of them can support their policies with biblical prooftexts. [Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You would be hard pressed to make a case for income equality from scripture. In the OT, God often blessed his followers with prosperity. Consider Abraham. Abraham was worried he wouldn't have an heir and would have to leave all his riches to his slave. Now, if there was biblical support for income equality or an estate tax, this would be the place to find it. God has the opportunity to chastise Abraham, tell him he didn't build that, and command him to leave all of his riches to his servants. As we know, God doesn't do that. That's just one example off the top of my head.

So the prosperity gospel is OK then?

What about the Jubilee, which stops the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others?

or the prophets' 'Woe to those who add field to field.?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If I really wanted to continue that tangent, Martin, I would continue it in Hell. I don't. So, I'll just decline to play the game.

Hell is a convenient place to say that one doesn't like another's point of view without having to ay why.

One's theology of incarnation and atonement are the bedrock that influences all one's other views. Hence the idea of a vindictive God in PSA strongly influences American criminal police - the death sentence. Also its warmongering. Both examples of right-wingery.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What about the Jubilee, which stops the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others?

or the prophets' 'Woe to those who add field to field.?

Of course, the Jubilee system! Never mind an estate tax or suchlike, how about everything gets returned to its previous owner every 50 years.

*Imagines what that would do to the stupidly high cost of housing in the UK*

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If I really wanted to continue that tangent, Martin, I would continue it in Hell. I don't. So, I'll just decline to play the game.
Hell is a convenient place to say that one doesn't like another's point of view without having to ay why.

One's theology of incarnation and atonement are the bedrock that influences all one's other views. Hence the idea of a vindictive God in PSA strongly influences American criminal police - the death sentence. Also its warmongering. Both examples of right-wingery.

Yeah, it was those right-wingers Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson that got the US involved in foreign wars. Of course, nobody ever practiced capital punishment before PSA. We certainly can't find examples of capital punishment in the Old Testament or in cultures that aren't Christian in the least.

I see no reason in turning this thread into another one on PSA. One, I don't believe in PSA or any other specific theory of the atonement. All I said was Jesus paid a debt we couldn't pay. Did I say to whom that debt was paid? I believe the atonement was vicarious. All theories of vicarious atonement include the image of Jesus doing something for us that we could not do for ourselves.

If I take your bait, I want the effort to be worth it. You say the idea of Jesus paying a debt we couldn't pay was invented by Anselm, right? If I can prove it did, will you agree to stop posting on Ship of Fools for a year?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Of course, the Jubilee system! Never mind an estate tax or suchlike, how about everything gets returned to its previous owner every 50 years.

*Imagines what that would do to the stupidly high cost of housing in the UK*

Housing costs? It would destroy society as we know it - housing costs would be the least of our worries!

I mean, never mind the ridiculousness of working out who "the original owner" should be to start with - can you imagine what would happen in the years or months leading up to a Jubilee? Sell your house with six months to go and rent a cheap bedsit while spending the whole lot on wine, women and song - once the Jubilee comes round, you get the house back for nothing!

Of course, that means nobody would even consider buying anything tangible within about five years of a Jubilee - they'd know they weren't going to be able to keep it.

And, to use a clicheed term, what of the children? Anyone born in the middle of a Jubilee period wouldn't have a prayer of making anything of their lives - regardless of how hard they work to get themselves a home they'll still have to hand it all back, probably just as their own children are being born. After all, they didn't even exist at the time of the previous Jubilee, so by definition when everything reverts to the previous owner they will have nothing.

Ah, you say - it could work at the level of the family rather than the individual. But that brings us to the ultimate, final clincher for why Jubilee is a really fucking stupid idea - it makes social mobility impossible. A poor family working their way up from a one-bed flat on the 25th floor to a semi-detatched house in surburbia? Nope - after fifty years they go right back to the flat again. That's where they started, and that's where they'll always end up. Jubilee demands it. [Disappointed]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You would be hard pressed to make a case for income equality from scripture. In the OT, God often blessed his followers with prosperity. Consider Abraham. Abraham was worried he wouldn't have an heir and would have to leave all his riches to his slave. Now, if there was biblical support for income equality or an estate tax, this would be the place to find it. God has the opportunity to chastise Abraham, tell him he didn't build that, and command him to leave all of his riches to his servants. As we know, God doesn't do that. That's just one example off the top of my head.
So the prosperity gospel is OK then?

What about the Jubilee, which stops the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others?

or the prophets' 'Woe to those who add field to field.?

No, the prosperity gospel is built on prooftexting just as much as the social gospel.

You quote Isaiah 5? I suppose you are also a fan of the temperance movement? You do realize God says He will punish both nobles and masses, don't you? Sorry, leo, sound exegesis is really important to me.

Jubilee? We've abolished slavery and indentured servitude. You miss the point that in allowing for slaves to be liberated every 7 years means slavery was an acceptable practice in the first place. We do have employment contracts. Personally, I'd love to be guaranteed a job for the next 7 or 49 years. Contracts aren't usually made for that long. As for land, I fail to see how returning land to it's original owner benefits anybody except people with lots of land and a lavish lifestyle. Who would that be in the UK? Doesn't sound like anybody voting Labor.

No, I'm guessing you like the concept of Jubilee but would like us to allow Socialists to tell us how it should be practiced today. You think it means forgiving all debts? Fine. People can file bankruptcy every 7 years. I'm sure those in the business of loaning money would prefer it be every 50 years but we don't live in a theocracy.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Am I wrong in thinking the the adoption of low corporate taxation policies for corporations since the 1980s at least, proportionately lower tax rates for wealthier people throughout the G8, and the middle class lower real income levels (post-tax, inflation influenced, purchasing power) are not right wing policies? How exactly are they not? This is again about the 'right shift' of the perception of the middle, where the middle has moved right. How is the 1%'s greed Christian?

I see the Old Testament references. How about some New Testament references to support the good Christian values of the right? No biblical scholar am I, but I don't recall the rich being real favs of JC.

CARTER: MIDDLE CLASS TODAY RESEMBLES PAST'S POOR

quote:
former USA president Jimmy Carter in above link
Equity of taxation and treating the middle class with a great deal of attention, providing funding for people in true need, like for affordable housing, those are the sort of things that would pay rich dividends for Americans no matter what kind of income they have
....
The richest people in America would be better off if everybody lived in a decent home and had a chance to pay for it, and if everyone had enough income even if they had a daily job to be good buyers for the products that are produced.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Of course, they are right wing policies. So? Greed is a deadly sin regardless of how much money you have. So? Are the 1% greedy? Maybe. Taking more of their money in taxes won't make them less greedy.

I'm not aware of the rich having an opinion of Jesus one way or the other. The religious establishment didn't like Jesus. I can't see from reading the gospels the Romans cared much about Jesus one way or the other. Pilate crucified Jesus to keep the peace. Jesus Questing authors believe differently but I have little time for any of their so called scholarship.

As I've already said, I don't believe in prooftexting. Why would I offer prooftexts in support of Jesus being right wing? It's a fools game.

Oh what the heck...

Pensions? Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for saying children should give their money to the Temple rather than taking care of their parents. Sounds like children are supposed to take care of their parents. Add to that the man who made enough to stop working and then Jesus said his soul was required of him. Sounds like Jesus doesn't want us to retire.

Jesus was all about investment. Consider the parable of the talents. The rich man took the one talent from the man who saved it and gave it to the one who successfully invested. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Wages? Look at the parable of the laborers. The owner of the vineyard paid all the laborers the same amount of money. Why was that OK? It was his money he could do with it what he wants. He paid what he promised. What he pays the other workers is no concern of the other laborers? There goes any support for a minimum wage, maximum wage, or equal pay for equal work.

I'll keep going later if you like?

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I worked for a Charity once, - everyone got the same wage from top to bottom. Then along came Computers and the Charity had to buy in 'expertise' from outside, and paid the Computer people a great deal more than everyone else and it all started to fall apart. More and more had to purchased from outside like elctricians and gas fitters becuase of legal changes, and the rest is history.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I's not the social conservatives. It's the rich ones who associate their wealth with social conservatism so as to justify themselves. Having decided that both riches and their rigid ideas about social order are God-given, violating some of the basic ideals of the Christianity's founder. It's not about political parties either. Though it does puzzle how progressivism, the ideas of elevating the masses through education and opportunity which were clearly based on Christian ideals, somehow became something to criticize and denigrate, even though in many places, these were clearly the product of social gospel. It is difficult for a rich person to get into heaven.

Yeah, but what you're talking about here is one flavor among many of right-wing politics.

It's a mistake to conflate the faith with the program of a political party, full stop. "Christian" and "leftist" aren't synonyms any more than "Christian" and "right-wing" are.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'll keep going later if you like?

Yes please. I am learning something now, and this is a serious comment.

Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on :

You cannnot serve God and man. Likewise you cannot be Christian and Tory. The two are incompatible. Everything about Christ's ministry suggests a bias towards the poor, the importance of community, and the valuing of social support and inclusion. It's the diametric opposite of Conservative (or Republican) party policy.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
You cannnot serve God and man. Likewise you cannot be Christian and Tory.

What a load of bollocks.

And I say that as a member of the Green Party and someone who's on the left of most social and fiscal issues.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Christianbuddhist:
Everything about Christ's ministry suggests a bias towards the poor, the importance of community, and the valuing of social support and inclusion. It's the diametric opposite of Conservative (or Republican) party policy.

This too is bollocks.

Other than that, it was one righteous post.

Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on :

quote:
What a load of bollocks.

Give me Liberation Theology over Quietist Heresy any day.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

In the US right wing does not necessarily mean rich. I have lived in Silicon Valley for several years and there are more rich people here than you can shake a stick at and the vast majority are very left leaning and Democratic. The right wing is propped up by poor, uneducated, racist whites who are angry about changing demographics and hate that there is a black president in the White House and there is nothing Christian about their positions.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'll keep going later if you like?
Yes please. I am learning something now, and this is a serious comment.

Public ownership of the means of production? Unionism? Take a look at the parable of the wicked husbandmen/tenants/farmers. Man plants a vineyard. Then, he leaves and goes to another country in effect becoming an absentee landlord. Then, the man has audacity to send messengers back to collect the fruits of the harvest. In other words, he wants to profit off the fruit of others labor. His employees unionize. They riot. They try to overthrow the oppressor. They kill his son so that they can inherit the land and run it as a collective. The rich man brings an army and kills them.

In fact, I'm struck by the number of times a king or rich person is used to represent God in the parable of Jesus. Why would Jesus do that if he was so against hierarchy and riches? Jesus does warn the rich but nowhere does he tell others to take money from them.

Welfare benefits? Paul tells the Thessalonians that those unwilling to work shouldn't eat. He tells them that when he was in Thessalonika he worked day and night so that he wouldn't be a burden to them. What would be unbiblical about having welfare recipients work for their benefits?

Lastly, both OT and NT demand that the poor be treated equally under the law. They should be given equal access to the courts and a fair hearing. Who takes advantage of the poor seeking justice from the courts? Trial lawyers that's who. Bring a class action lawsuit. Lawyers walk away with millions of dollars. The participants in the lawsuit usually walk away with a paltry sum of money if they receive any money at all. Trial lawyers don't vote for Republicans.

Let me say again, I'm not suggesting anybody support right wing political parties because the gospels can be read in a way that supports them. I sure don't. I'm just demonstrating that biblical prooftexts can be used to support just about any political philosophy. None of them are inherently Christian or not Christian.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
In the US right wing does not necessarily mean rich. I have lived in Silicon Valley for several years and there are more rich people here than you can shake a stick at and the vast majority are very left leaning and Democratic. The right wing is propped up by poor, uneducated, racist whites who are angry about changing demographics and hate that there is a black president in the White House and there is nothing Christian about their positions.

Nothing Christian about your judgmentalism either.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
<snip>

Let me say again, I'm not suggesting anybody support right wing political parties because the gospels can be read in a way that supports them. I sure don't. I'm just demonstrating that biblical prooftexts can be used to support just about any political philosophy. None of them are inherently Christian or not Christian.

Have to say that is a most excellent demonstration of your point, very impressive.

( Hangs up some old rhetorical tools, never to be used again. )

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
In the US right wing does not necessarily mean rich. I have lived in Silicon Valley for several years and there are more rich people here than you can shake a stick at and the vast majority are very left leaning and Democratic. The right wing is propped up by poor, uneducated, racist whites who are angry about changing demographics and hate that there is a black president in the White House and there is nothing Christian about their positions.
Nothing Christian about your judgmentalism either.

Yes, if minorities weren't so judgmental and accepted our place at the bottom this country would be better off.
Natural God given order of things and all that.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In fact, I'm struck by the number of times a king or rich person is used to represent God in the parable of Jesus. Why would Jesus do that if he was so against hierarchy and riches? Jesus does warn the rich but nowhere does he tell others to take money from them.

I've thought it had to do with the kingship ideals of the time, including the rendering to Caesar, male headship, the suffering of the Jews with their attribution of that to some big Godly kingly plan. JC knew his crowd so he talked to them in the frame of reference they understood? (and I put a question mark after than as well as thinking it well true)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
In the US right wing does not necessarily mean rich. I have lived in Silicon Valley for several years and there are more rich people here than you can shake a stick at and the vast majority are very left leaning and Democratic. The right wing is propped up by poor, uneducated, racist whites who are angry about changing demographics and hate that there is a black president in the White House and there is nothing Christian about their positions.
Nothing Christian about your judgmentalism either.
Yes, if minorities weren't so judgmental and accepted our place at the bottom this country would be better off.
Natural God given order of things and all that.

How many of the tens of millions of Republican voters have you actually met? Nevertheless, you've decided that each and every one of them votes Republican because they hate having a black president and changing demographics. You are claiming to have knowledge only God could have. I'll bet you also have problems with stereotyping minorities but you don't see to have a problem stereotyping others. I'm certain Jesus had a problem with hypocrisy.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ah, you see the Salon des Dichotomies Faux effect beautifully here.

Both the left and the right excluding each other and projecting themselves alone on Jesus.

Great homme de paille too Beeswax Altar.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

This is an English language website - please translate or link.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

In fact, I'm struck by the number of times a king or rich person is used to represent God in the parable of Jesus. Why would Jesus do that if he was so against hierarchy and riches? Jesus does warn the rich but nowhere does he tell others to take money from them.

You might as well say that Jesus endorsed dodgy dealing and fiddling accounts when he commended the unjust steward. Jesus uses examples from the world as it is, not the world he might wish it to be.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yes, if only Jesus would have told us he wanted a parliamentary social democracy, it would have been so much easier. He didn't. So, I have no idea what type of government Jesus would have established. My guess is if politics was as important as some think it is he might have actually become the political messiah the Jews expected, liberated Israel from Roman rule, and established an exemplary kingdom on earth. At least, Jesus would have been a rich man who gave up his riches as an example to the rich and powerful of how they should live. Again, I'm only interested in the Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels and what his disciples did and taught as a response to his teaching.

The parable of the unjust steward is a difficult one because I believe Jesus really was saying that you might as well make friends through unjust wealth if you put your faith in wealth. This is why the poor and powerless have an advantage over the rich and powerful. The poor and powerless have nothing to rely on but God. If we truly believed that God preferred the poor simply because they were poor, the only rational response would be to be as poor and powerless as possible. What could we desire more than the love and favor of God?

[ 08. October 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Am I wrong in thinking the the adoption of low corporate taxation policies for corporations since the 1980s at least, proportionately lower tax rates for wealthier people throughout the G8, and the middle class lower real income levels (post-tax, inflation influenced, purchasing power) are not right wing policies? How exactly are they not?

Isn't this the economics of globalisation ? Of software companies that can locate anywhere in the world. Of celebrities (pop stars, actors) who travel all over the world and can make their home anywhere. The country which attracts these footloose industries gets the jobs. The country where the celebrity makes their home is where they spend their wealth. It's not about redistribution of a nation's wealth, it's about trying to increase a nation's wealth in a competitive world.

You may think such a strategy mistaken. But don't confuse it with ideology.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's about being shrewd with light, not darkness, working smarter for the kingdom with all that we have, and all of us here have much one way and/or the other. Money being the least of it.

And politics has never been so important.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Martin

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory

There goes Lord Shaftesbury.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't this the economics of globalisation ? Of software companies that can locate anywhere in the world. Of celebrities (pop stars, actors) who travel all over the world and can make their home anywhere. The country which attracts these footloose industries gets the jobs. The country where the celebrity makes their home is where they spend their wealth. It's not about redistribution of a nation's wealth, it's about trying to increase a nation's wealth in a competitive world.

You may think such a strategy mistaken. But don't confuse it with ideology.

Best wishes,

Russ

Wealthy people have freedom, large corporations have freedom, money has freedom, but ordinary individuals do not. The drive to increase the wealth of a country does not increase the wealth of all individuals in the country, only of some, and in fact, diminishes the wealth of many individuals. It's a race to the bottom for most of us.

None of these things are automatic or just "the way things are". WE MADE THEM THAT WAY. They are a result of choices people made, based on their values. Free trade is an ideology. "Money talks" is an ideology. "Right to work" is an ideology. Absence of safety regulations and environmental protection for more profit is ideology. The idea that treating rich people well and treating poor people like shit is good long-term social and economic policy for any country is also an ideology.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory

And John Wesley.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory
And John Wesley.

I'm gonna take some liberties here and speculate that christianbuddhist was referring to the Tory party as it has existed from the Thatcher era onward. He/She can correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

We have another thread on the Church. Zach82 implied that those who aren't baptized are not Christians. People went ballistic. How dare he say that? Who cares if Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new disciples? Who cares if Peter told the crowd at Pentecost to repent and be baptized? Who cares if that's been the rite of Christian initiation for 2000 years? Who cares if it takes seconds to perform said ritual? How dare he judge! How dare he exclude!

However, the claim that you can't be a Tory and a Christian is far less controversial. Why? Well, some of the stuff Jesus said strikes some of the Lefties on board as being Left wing. Apparently that's all it takes to pass judgment upon and exclude the evil Thatcherites from Christianity.

Things you learn on Ship of Fools. [Killing me]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think it would be better to say that you cannot believe in Christ's teachings and those of conservative ideology. "Greed is good" is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. There may be Christians who hold that view, but in doing so they hold a view which is not Christian. This is something all Christians do, in fact it is an aspect of the sin of which we are all guilty.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory
And John Wesley.
I'm gonna take some liberties here and speculate that christianbuddhist was referring to the Tory party as it has existed from the Thatcher era onward. He/She can correct me if I'm wrong.

I would have thought that anti-Tory Christians would find as much or more to criticise in the Toryism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as or than in the Toryism of the last quarter of the twentieth.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it would be better to say that you cannot believe in Christ's teachings and those of conservative ideology. "Greed is good" is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. There may be Christians who hold that view, but in doing so they hold a view which is not Christian. This is something all Christians do, in fact it is an aspect of the sin of which we are all guilty.

"Greed is good"is the creed of neo-liberal nihilism, not conservatism.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it would be better to say that you cannot believe in Christ's teachings and those of conservative ideology. "Greed is good" is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. There may be Christians who hold that view, but in doing so they hold a view which is not Christian. This is something all Christians do, in fact it is an aspect of the sin of which we are all guilty.
"Greed is good"is the creed of neo-liberal nihilism, not conservatism.

And there's no true Scotsman. It's long been the policy of the Conservative Party in Britain.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Could I offer a less partisan re-phrasing of 'greed is good'? How about:

'The personal risk-taking and hard work that can spring from the desire to make a fortune should not be squashed or driven abroad by high tax rates and a general environmental hostile to entrepreneurship.'

Not so catchy, I grant you...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We have another thread on the Church. Zach82 implied that those who aren't baptized are not Christians. People went ballistic. How dare he say that? Who cares if Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize new disciples?

Whether or not people are baptised does not effect the price of bread.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm just demonstrating that biblical prooftexts can be used to support just about any political philosophy. None of them are inherently Christian or not Christian.

Then either the Bible has no relevance to politics nor anything else and we may as well jettison it.

Or we go with the main thrust of what has been revealed over the centuries of its compilation.

That main thrust is against selfish greed and wealth accumulation and for the reign of God in the whole of our lives and our dealings with each other.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The drive to increase the wealth of a country does not increase the wealth of all individuals in the country, only of some, and in fact, diminishes the wealth of many individuals.

Socialism, of course, seeks to 'fix' that by increasing the wealth of poorer individuals and oh wait no it doesn't it works by diminishing the wealth of all individuals so that the wealth of the State can grow and grow.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"Greed is good" is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

That is certainly an arguable position. What's less arguable is the position that says people should be forced by law not to be greedy because it's against the tenets of Christianity.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Public ownership of the means of production? Unionism? Take a look at the parable of the wicked husbandmen/tenants/farmers. Man plants a vineyard. Then, he leaves and goes to another country in effect becoming an absentee landlord. Then, the man has audacity to send messengers back to collect the fruits of the harvest. In other words, he wants to profit off the fruit of others labor. His employees unionize. They riot. They try to overthrow the oppressor. They kill his son so that they can inherit the land and run it as a collective. The rich man brings an army and kills them.

In fact, I'm struck by the number of times a king or rich person is used to represent God in the parable of Jesus. Why would Jesus do that if he was so against hierarchy and riches?

There are several examples of parables where Jesus unquestionably likens God to someone unjust or tells Christians to imitate someone immoral. (The unjust judge, the sacked steward, for example.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The drive to increase the wealth of a country does not increase the wealth of all individuals in the country, only of some, and in fact, diminishes the wealth of many individuals.
Socialism, of course, seeks to 'fix' that by increasing the wealth of poorer individuals and oh wait no it doesn't it works by diminishing the wealth of all individuals so that the wealth of the State can grow and grow.

What is this 'wealth of the State' of which you speak? I know that I am thick, and have never understood economics, but whatever may have happened in the Soviet Union and similar regimes, socialism as I and most Europeans understand it is not about 'increasing the wealth of the State' (least of all amassing weapons of mass destruction, that tends to be a right-wing thing), but about sharing the wealth more equitably. Free medical care; decent housing; all that sort of thing.

I know that the wealth gap has been widening in Britain for many years, including the years of New Labour. Just more evidence, if anyone needed it, that Blairism is not socialism. If the Tories thought that Labour had been increasing the wealth of the state from 1997 to 2010, they must have been astounded to discover the deficit that they did. But of course they are not that naive.

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :

Isn't it obvious that one can be a Christian-Buddhist, but not a Tory Christian?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Could I offer a less partisan re-phrasing of 'greed is good'? How about:

'The personal risk-taking and hard work that can spring from the desire to make a fortune should not be squashed or driven abroad by high tax rates and a general environmental hostile to entrepreneurship.'

Not so catchy, I grant you...

Particularly as these sort of people tend to generate jobs.

A pox and a praise on both their houses I say: as someone upthread has pointed out, the sin of the Right is greed and that of the Left envy; one could also say that the virtue of the Right is enterprise and that of the Left a passion for justice and equality. Why can we not take the best of both whilst doing our best to minimise the downsides of each?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Could I offer a less partisan re-phrasing of 'greed is good'? How about:

'The personal risk-taking and hard work that can spring from the desire to make a fortune should not be squashed or driven abroad by high tax rates and a general environmental hostile to entrepreneurship.'

Not so catchy, I grant you...
Particularly as these sort of people tend to generate jobs.

A pox and a praise on both their houses I say: as someone upthread has pointed out, the sin of the Right is greed and that of the Left envy; one could also say that the virtue of the Right is enterprise and that of the Left a passion for justice and equality. Why can we not take the best of both whilst doing our best to minimise the downsides of each?

I doubt that is possible, as both are beneficial unless taken to extremes. Politics is mostly about where different people put their 'extremes', and enshrining matters of degree in legislation is usually arbitrary.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
I think it would be better to say that you cannot believe in Christ's teachings and those of conservative ideology. "Greed is good" is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. There may be Christians who hold that view, but in doing so they hold a view which is not Christian. This is something all Christians do, in fact it is an aspect of the sin of which we are all guilty.

You can't believe Christ's teachings and those of Socialist ideology either. The politics of envy is not compatible with Christianity. Anybody can play that.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What is this 'wealth of the State' of which you speak?

Increasing State ownership of things at the expense of private ownership of them. Increasing the tax take so that the State has more money and individuals have less.

quote:
socialism as I and most Europeans understand it is not about 'increasing the wealth of the State' (least of all amassing weapons of mass destruction, that tends to be a right-wing thing), but about sharing the wealth more equitably. Free medical care; decent housing; all that sort of thing.

See, if they were sharing the wealth by giving people the money and letting them spend it as they see fit that would be one thing. Taking the money and giving it back to people in the form of those services the State decides they need is something completely different.

quote:
I know that the wealth gap has been widening in Britain for many years, including the years of New Labour.

But that's referring to the wealth gap in terms of income and spending money. Spending more money on services won't put a single extra penny into the pockets of poor people, so the only way it will work to close the gap is by making the rich poorer. And where will all that wealth that formerly belonged to the rich be going? Not to the poor, but to the State.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Spending more money on services won't put a single extra penny into the pockets of poor people, so the only way it will work to close the gap is by making the rich poorer. And where will all that wealth that formerly belonged to the rich be going? Not to the poor, but to the State.

You're right it doesn't put more money in the pockets of poor people, or even those like you and me on middle-ish incomes.

That money, spent on services like health, welfare and education benefits us and people like us. Moreover, with VAT at 20% (and that applies to some pretty basic items - ask any woman of child-bearing age), National Insurance Contributions and duties on vehicles and cars, the working "poor" and less well-off don't pay much less in tax than the "rich" do.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
Posted by Pommie Mick
Isn't it obvious that one can be a Christian-Buddhist, but not a Tory Christian?

NO. (Read the thread.) [brick wall]

There's a lot of repetition of "Greed is Good" as if this is something from a Conservative Party manifesto or similar, when in fact it comes from a FILM - Wall Street - which was a work of fiction.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I really get fed up with the criticism of the left as espousing the politics of envy. That presupposes that their driver is looking at the rich and wanting what they've got.
I think, and have always thought, that the driver is looking at the deprived and wanting to improve what they've got. Then, if one looks around and sees what the rich have, while the poor are lacking, it does appear to be unfair, and worthy of comment. Rather like the story of Dives and Lazarus, perhaps. That is not envy.
That song by Porter runs in my mind. Who wants the bother of a country estate? A gigantic yacht? A supersonic plane? Private landing field? Wanting that sort of thing is envy. Wanting freedom from the deep anxiety of not having enough for the rent, for the utilities, for food, for medicine is not envy. Wanting those freedoms for others is not envy. Wanting to point out the powerful injustice of many lacking those freedoms while others swan around with more money than most could imagine how to spend, and suggesting the latter contribute to the wellbeing of the former is not envy.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Whether or not people are baptised does not effect the price of bread.

I'm torn between two answers to this.

1. No but taxes do
2. So what?

I'll go with 2.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Then either the Bible has no relevance to politics nor anything else and we may as well jettison it.

Why would we jettison the record of God's revelation of himself to the world? Why would we jettison the book that contain all things necessary for salvation? Because it can't be used as a pamphlet for leo's political causes? I say we assuming you continue to self identify as an orthodox Anglo-Catholic Christian.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Or we go with the main thrust of what has been revealed over the centuries of its compilation.

Well, you want get that by prooftexting that's for sure.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
That main thrust is against selfish greed and wealth accumulation and for the reign of God in the whole of our lives and our dealings with each other.

Greed is bad regardless of how much wealth you have. The Bible is ambivalent about the accumulation of wealth. Even if you believe the bible explicitly rejects wealth accumulation, all that means is you shouldn't focus on wealth accumulation. It is about the reign of God in our lives and how we treat each other. All of our lives doesn't mean just the material and our faith should be in God not in the government or Left wing activists. Try spending some time with faithful Christians who live paycheck to paycheck and you would see how that looked. How we treat others means how we treat others. You, leo, should be concerned about how you treat others. Instead, you see more worried about how your political opponents treat others. Mite and mote and all that.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by PennyS:
I really get fed up with the criticism of the left as espousing the politics of envy. That presupposes that their driver is looking at the rich and wanting what they've got.
I think, and have always thought, that the driver is looking at the deprived and wanting to improve what they've got.

I'd suggest that if you are fed up with simplistic criticisms of the Left that you not engage in simplistic criticisms of the Right. If you want to improve what the deprived got, then give them some of yours (that's the Christian thing to do). If you want to talk about music and envy, try listening to hip hop.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You're right it doesn't put more money in the pockets of poor people, or even those like you and me on middle-ish incomes.

Then it's not increasing their (or our) wealth.

quote:
That money, spent on services like health, welfare and education benefits us and people like us.

Only to a certain point. After that point the extra money being spent isn't really providing any extra benefit, and would serve us better if it was in our pockets to be spent on the things we actually want.

If, for example, it would cost £100 per person to reduce GP waiting times by five minutes, I'd rather have the £100. And so, I suspect, would everybody else.

quote:
Moreover, with VAT at 20% (and that applies to some pretty basic items - ask any woman of child-bearing age), National Insurance Contributions and duties on vehicles and cars, the working "poor" and less well-off don't pay much less in tax than the "rich" do.

Do the poor spend more money on VAT-able goods, NI contributions and vehicle duties than the rich do? Surely rich people who buy more things, have higher salaries and drive bigger vehicles would therefore be paying more of those taxes?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
Posted by Marvin the Martian
Do the poor spend more money on VAT-able goods, NI contributions and vehicle duties than the rich do? Surely rich people who buy more things, have higher salaries and drive bigger vehicles would therefore be paying more of those taxes?

They may not pay more in numerical or monetary terms but they pay more as a proportion of available money or income and much of the tax and duty they pay is unavoidable.

How so? Well, the VAT levied on sanitary towels or tampons is at the same rate for every woman (there are no "luxury" brands) but since every woman who bleeds needs them then the proportion being spent by the woman earning the minimum wage compared to the woman earning £50k plus is much greater - yet both need exactly the same item.

Similarly, the rate of VAT is the same on gas and electricity, soft toilet paper (or would you say the poor should use Bronco?), soap other than carbolic, fuel duty is the same, etc, etc, etc.

In the case of fuel duty, while the better off may be spending money on cars, the vehicles they are having to fill with fuel are likely to be newer and better maintained, and thus more fuel efficient, so in fact they end up paying LESS VAT and fuel duty per mile than the poor.

And before we get onto the subject of why do the poor have cars, how else do you propose a woman who works as a carer gets around? The agency she works for won't provide her with a vehicle or transport, they'll expect her to provide her own.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In the case of fuel duty, while the better off may be spending money on cars, the vehicles they are having to fill with fuel are likely to be newer and better maintained, and thus more fuel efficient, so in fact they end up paying LESS VAT and fuel duty per mile than the poor.

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a new 4-litre Jaguar costs more in fuel (thus fuel tax) and tax disc payments than an old 1-litre Vauxhall.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Spending more money on services won't put a single extra penny into the pockets of poor people, so the only way it will work to close the gap is by making the rich poorer. And where will all that wealth that formerly belonged to the rich be going? Not to the poor, but to the State.

Point of order: firstly, spending more money on services does put money in the pockets of poor people. Councils and other state-run services employ a lot of less-well paid workers. More money spent on cleaning, road-repairs, parks and gardens, leisure centres, libraries etc will all result in money being paid to poorer people.

Secondly, The State has no money. None whatsoever. At least, ours doesn't. States like China, Norway and the Gulf States do, in the form of sovereign wealth funds. The UK does not. What it gets, it spends, and then some.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you want to improve what the deprived got, then give them some of yours (that's the Christian thing to do).

and the most efficient way of doing that is usually to pay tax so that the government (not 'The State': it can mean a local council) can provide things to improve the lot of the poor and everyone else. Do you suggest that we all dig our own sewers or incinerate our own rubbish?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Bible is ambivalent about the accumulation of wealth.

God and his Mum would disagree:

quote:
He ... has sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1.53)

quote:
Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. (Luke 6.24)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you want to improve what the deprived got, then give them some of yours (that's the Christian thing to do).
and the most efficient way of doing that is usually to pay tax so that the government (not 'The State': it can mean a local council) can provide things to improve the lot of the poor and everyone else. Do you suggest that we all dig our own sewers or incinerate our own rubbish?

OK...if all care for the poor means is paying taxes, then pay your taxes. Jesus came to tell us we should pay taxes. No wonder the Publicans liked Jesus so much!

I'm not opposed to paying taxes. I have my own personal views about taxes. They have nothing to do with Christianity. You can hold completely opposite views on taxes and still be a Christian. Tax policy is not in the Creed.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... See, if they were sharing the wealth by giving people the money and letting them spend it as they see fit that would be one thing. Taking the money and giving it back to people in the form of those services the State decides they need is something completely different. ...

So you say it's different. So fucking what? Have you heard of the concept of economy of scale?Millions of individuals with $100 each will not get anywhere near as much bang for their buck as if they all get together and have millions to spend. They may have "freedom of choice" but their choices are restricted to whatever you can get for $100. You can make the princely sum of $1.41 in one year with a GIC, for example. That's why there are so many jokes and stereotypes about government cash payments being spent on beer and cigarettes - because buying yourself a treat is pretty much all you can do with that kind of money.

In a democracy, the "services the State decides they need" are actually determined by the citizens and their elected government. Shocking, I know. Citizens in a democratic society can decide that everyone should have access to health care, public education, quality child care, clean water and safe food and good roads, affordable and accessible arts, culture, sports and recreation, just to name a few. None of these things can be accomplished by individuals with $100 in their pocket. So there are many cases in which, yeah, I'll happily forgo the $100 bucks and join with my fellow citizens to create the services and opportunities and security we want.

Now, if the next argument is that democratic governments are not really controlled by the citizenry, but by the wealthy and powerful, or by so-called special interests, then the problem has nothing to do with whether taxes are too high or too low, and raising or lowering taxes won't fix it.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Bible is ambivalent about the accumulation of wealth.
God and his Mum would disagree:

quote:
He ... has sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1.53)

quote:
Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. (Luke 6.24)

So, don't accumulate wealth. Sell all that you own and give it to the poor. The government isn't God and why would you deny the rich their comfort in this life when they will be damned in the next. Abraham, who accumulated his share of wealth, tells Dives he, Dives, had his comfort on earth because he was rich and yet Abraham is not with Dives despite the fact Abraham was also rich. Typically, left wingers are only concerned with the material world. Makes sense what with them being Marxist and all. I'm not sure why they expect the rich to worry about their mortal souls.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory
And John Wesley.
I'm gonna take some liberties here and speculate that christianbuddhist was referring to the Tory party as it has existed from the Thatcher era onward. He/She can correct me if I'm wrong.
I would have thought that anti-Tory Christians would find as much or more to criticise in the Toryism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as or than in the Toryism of the last quarter of the twentieth.

Well, again, not wanting to speak for buddhsitchristian, but...

There is the idea that the older, pre-neolib version of the Conservative Party maintained some ideal of an organic social order, lubricated with a sense of noblesse oblige, and functioning for the benefit of all its citizens.

In the UK, I think this tendency is linked most strongly with Disraeli and, later, MacMillan. In Canada, I can say with some assurance it is linked most strongly with Sir John A. MacDonald and Diefenbaker.

Now yes, there are also things about this old- school Toryism that progressives would despise, for example imperialism. But these were present in the Liberal parties as well(the Canadian Liberals sent us into the Boer War), and so aren't really a distinctive factor of Toryism.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you want to improve what the deprived got, then give them some of yours (that's the Christian thing to do).
and the most efficient way of doing that is usually to pay tax...

I believe the problem there is that taxation isn't "giving them some of yours", it's "giving them some of everybody else's as well, whenther they want to give it or not".

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

That assumes you don't claim enough deductions to avoid paying taxes at all. Then, you are just giving them some of theirs. I hope all the Christian Lefties aren't claiming too many deductions. After all, paying taxes is our bounden duty and service.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you want to improve what the deprived got, then give them some of yours (that's the Christian thing to do).
and the most efficient way of doing that is usually to pay tax...
I believe the problem there is that taxation isn't "giving them some of yours", it's "giving them some of everybody else's as well, whenther they want to give it or not".

Ask those who 'don't want to give it' if they are prepared to maintain their own standing army, educate not just their own children but any tutors/university professors etc who might be called upon, dig their own sewers, police their own roads...etc etc...

If we don't live in society and don't take anything from it then I suppose we have the right to withhold tax. However even the most withdrawn hermit can hardly exist 100% independently.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by PennyS:
I really get fed up with the criticism of the left as espousing the politics of envy. That presupposes that their driver is looking at the rich and wanting what they've got.
I think, and have always thought, that the driver is looking at the deprived and wanting to improve what they've got.
I'd suggest that if you are fed up with simplistic criticisms of the Left that you not engage in simplistic criticisms of the Right. If you want to improve what the deprived got, then give them some of yours (that's the Christian thing to do). If you want to talk about music and envy, try listening to hip hop.

I've been trying to find where I have made simplistic criticisms of the right in this thread. Nada. (I have thoughts at times about differing styles of arguments on either side, but I don't think I have posted them here ever.)

If I want to use the elegant phrases of 1930's lyrics because they express what I think, why shouldn't I? Why in the name of anyone literate should I turn to the rambles of the young, which as far as I know do nothing I would want to endorse?

As for what I may or may not do with what I've got, beyond paying my taxes, that is not your business, thank you very much.

quote:
Typically, left wingers are only concerned with the material world.

I know that there have been people who have pointed out that it is very difficult to think about the soul on an empty stomach, but I can't recall who, off hand.

Oh, light dawns. Criticising the use of the phrase "politics of envy" was a simplistic criticism. Hmmm.

[ 09. October 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory
And John Wesley.
I'm gonna take some liberties here and speculate that christianbuddhist was referring to the Tory party as it has existed from the Thatcher era onward. He/She can correct me if I'm wrong.
I would have thought that anti-Tory Christians would find as much or more to criticise in the Toryism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as or than in the Toryism of the last quarter of the twentieth.
Well, again, not wanting to speak for buddhsitchristian, but...

There is the idea that the older, pre-neolib version of the Conservative Party maintained some ideal of an organic social order, lubricated with a sense of noblesse oblige, and functioning for the benefit of all its citizens.

In the UK, I think this tendency is linked most strongly with Disraeli and, later, MacMillan. In Canada, I can say with some assurance it is linked most strongly with Sir John A. MacDonald and Diefenbaker.

Now yes, there are also things about this old- school Toryism that progressives would despise, for example imperialism. But these were present in the Liberal parties as well(the Canadian Liberals sent us into the Boer War), and so aren't really a distinctive factor of Toryism.

I agree. One-nation Toryism was bad enough, but at least contained some sort of reciprocity and duty of care to the poorest, even if it was patronising and phrased in terms of charity rather than justice. Perhaps the world-view of the One-nation Tory is best encapsulated in the rarely-sung final verse of All Things Bright and Beautiful: "the rich man in his castle / the poor man at his gate ... ".

Modern Thatcherite Conservatism, however, is a very different kettle of (piranha) fish.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by PennyS:
As for what I may or may not do with what I've got, beyond paying my taxes, that is not your business, thank you very much.

No, it isn't.

Thanks for proving my point, PennyS. [Biased]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That assumes you don't claim enough deductions to avoid paying taxes at all. Then, you are just giving them some of theirs. I hope all the Christian Lefties aren't claiming too many deductions. After all, paying taxes is our bounden duty and service.

Indeed it is. And I don't claim deductions I could for interest and maintenance on the house I let out (and to head that one off, it's not out of choice, it's due to shenanigans on the part of the building society, and I rent the house I live in currently); or deductions for part of my union subscription and membership of my professional body.

[ 09. October 2013, 16:49: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Ah, so paying taxes is a sacrament. And you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in high taxes and pay as high a rate as possible. So, paying taxes must be the fundamental sacrament.

Amazing the things you learn on Ship of Fools. [Killing me]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Paying your taxes is required of Christians. I don't see how that equates to thinking they're a sacrament or anything about the level of taxation.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ah, so paying taxes is a sacrament. And you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in high taxes and pay as high a rate as possible. So, paying taxes must be the fundamental sacrament.

Amazing the things you learn on Ship of Fools.

Where do you deduce that bit of nonsense from anything anyone has said on this thread? I resent paying taxes for things like illegal wars, and although I have never done so I think it would be quite Christian to protest by withholding some of it. But in general, tax is part of our responsibility as members of society. And much as some would like to, it is impossible to opt out of being members of society.

Toryism= individualism = the opposite of Christianity. OK that is a caricature but I've yet to be convinced that individualism (in that sense) is encouraged by the Gospel.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by PennyS:
As for what I may or may not do with what I've got, beyond paying my taxes, that is not your business, thank you very much.
No, it isn't.

Thanks for proving my point, PennyS.

Let's imagine I am very, very thick. Your point is? I'm simplistic?

I could, instead, have quoted Matthew 6,4, but that would have said more than I wanted to.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ah, so paying taxes is a sacrament. And you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in high taxes and pay as high a rate as possible. So, paying taxes must be the fundamental sacrament.

Amazing the things you learn on Ship of Fools.
Where do you deduce that bit of nonsense from anything anyone has said on this thread? I resent paying taxes for things like illegal wars, and although I have never done so I think it would be quite Christian to protest by withholding some of it. But in general, tax is part of our responsibility as members of society. And much as some would like to, it is impossible to opt out of being members of society.

Toryism= individualism = the opposite of Christianity. OK that is a caricature but I've yet to be convinced that individualism (in that sense) is encouraged by the Gospel.

Well, if paying taxes is our bounden, duty, and service (Arethosemyfeet said so) as is the Eucharist, then it must be a sacrament. If we have to pay taxes to be Christians but baptism is optional (leo said that), then paying taxes must be the fundamental sacrament.

Individualism is part of the Gospel. Ultimately, we make the decision to follow Jesus or not. We are responsible for which master we serve. Actually taking the NT as a whole gives a picture of mutual obligation more akin to One Nation Toryism than those who want to blame the rich for every problem society faces. Again, I don't think One Nation Toryism is any more Christian than any other political system in the United States or UK. Furthermore, the NT is about forming intentional communities apart from the larger society for the benefit of the larger society and it is life in those communities the NT writers primarily address. In Acts, the church in Jerusalem forms a community that shares everything in common. Nothing is preventing Christians from forming intentional communities like that. Some are. However, I note that it is in writing to a similar community at Thessaloniki that Paul chastises the idol for being a burden to the larger community. If Christians formed such intentional communities that shared everything in common, the ones providing the most would soon become annoyed with those who contributed nothing. I've seen how protective people can be of their own resources but are willing to be quite generous the other people's money.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I'm sorry, I'm not up on my secret catholic codewords for the Eucharist. Maybe if you used arguments for the purpose of generating light rather than heat that might be helpful?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Generating heat instead of light? Here we are on page 5 of a thread charging that right wing people can't be Christians supported by nothing but a smattering of prooftexts coupled with unproven assertions the Gospel is clearly all about Left Wing politics. Again, this statement was far less controversial than Zach82's claim (which has far more support from scripture and tradition) that those who aren't baptized aren't Christians. I'm just taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I think that might be a wee bit overstated. I would tend to say that right wing values seem to be about less sharing than moderate people. The left has it's own problems, which might be the subject of another thread(?).

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Why do so many posters on this thread ignore the fact that the Gospel is mostly paradox? And that two seemingly opposed things can be true at the same time?

I said 'individualism in that sense' (ie 'I have no responsibility for others') is incompatible with the Gospel. That doesn't deny the truth that we each have to respond to the call, and each of us is a unique incarnation of the divine.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Why do so many posters on this thread ignore the fact that the Gospel is mostly paradox? And that two seemingly opposed things can be true at the same time?

Moreover, what isn't paradox is parable. Those were the days of parable and we have to a great extent lost the ability to understand them. Above all they were subtle, and we are now in a very cut-and-dried era where clarity is prized at the expense of accuracy. I mean that: it is all too easy to make a decision on this side or that of a convenient and perhaps arbitrary line, even though that line might not be in the right place!

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I do beg your pardon Doublethink, I missed your intervention. Hall of False Dichotomies as a paraphrase of Hall of Mirrors. Man of straw.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... See, if they were sharing the wealth by giving people the money and letting them spend it as they see fit that would be one thing. Taking the money and giving it back to people in the form of those services the State decides they need is something completely different. ...
So you say it's different. So fucking what? Have you heard of the concept of economy of scale?

Have you heard of diseconomies of scale? No? I thought not.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... See, if they were sharing the wealth by giving people the money and letting them spend it as they see fit that would be one thing. Taking the money and giving it back to people in the form of those services the State decides they need is something completely different. ...
So you say it's different. So fucking what? Have you heard of the concept of economy of scale?
Have you heard of diseconomies of scale? No? I thought not.

However, you are not comparing like with like. The economies of scale of say, the NHS, far outweigh both the diseconomy of its size, and the lack of organisation of the individual.

Fuel co-ops can command a far lower price per unit than individual customers can. While not being able to over the very lowest price, an entirely nationalised energy industry will still be able to offer one lower than offered to individuals by several 'competing' suppliers.

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
Posted by Pommie Mick
Isn't it obvious that one can be a Christian-Buddhist, but not a Tory Christian?
NO. (Read the thread.)

There's a lot of repetition of "Greed is Good" as if this is something from a Conservative Party manifesto or similar, when in fact it comes from a FILM - Wall Street - which was a work of fiction.

I think you missed my sarcasm.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory
And John Wesley.
I'm gonna take some liberties here and speculate that christianbuddhist was referring to the Tory party as it has existed from the Thatcher era onward. He/She can correct me if I'm wrong.
I would have thought that anti-Tory Christians would find as much or more to criticise in the Toryism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as or than in the Toryism of the last quarter of the twentieth.
Well, again, not wanting to speak for buddhsitchristian, but...

There is the idea that the older, pre-neolib version of the Conservative Party maintained some ideal of an organic social order, lubricated with a sense of noblesse oblige, and functioning for the benefit of all its citizens.

Really?

How was concern for the benefit of all “citizens” (which would have been a dangerous word to use in those days) demonstrated by the Tories’ opposition to the French Revolution and its supporters in Britain?

(I realize that it was even more effectively opposed by Burke, so perhaps we could have a thread on whether it was possible to be a Whig and a Christian – it couldn’t be any sillier than this one).

Or by the Tories’ violent counter-measures to popular misery and discontent after the Napoleonic Wars eg Peterloo (“I met murder on the way / He had a face like Castlereagh…”)?

Or by Tory efforts to block the Great Reform Bill of 1832?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So you say it's different. So fucking what? Have you heard of the concept of economy of scale?
Have you heard of diseconomies of scale? No? I thought not.

Well of course, and there is a valid argument for small government or local government (coff, devolution, we've had threads on it, it wasn't a left/right issue* and for what it's worth my position is for a fractal pattern).

But so often you see the undertones that's it's not the efficiency of the body doing it that's the problem, it's what it's doing.

*or rather it was, but not in a simple way.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

FWIW:

1. Harold Macmillan was a radical, with only a generation between him and the croft. His family were in the radical wing of the Liberal party, and moved to the Conservative and Unionist party (its correct title for many years) over Irish Home Rule. For solid evidence of his radicalism, read his book The Middle Way as well as his autobiography, esp volumes 2 and 3. Macmillan was a devout Anglo-Catholic for most of his life.

2. Macmillan married into the Cavendishes. Like the Churchills (and Macmillan was a protege of Winston Churchill) they had been Whigs for a couple of centuries, but again split from the Liberal party over Irish Home Rule.

3. The Tory wing of the Conservative and Unionist party in the postwar years is best exemplified by Eden, Salisbury and Butler. Macleod and Heath were more technocrats in the Pompidou/d"Estaing style.

[ 10. October 2013, 06:51: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
you cannot be Christian and Tory
And John Wesley.
I'm gonna take some liberties here and speculate that christianbuddhist was referring to the Tory party as it has existed from the Thatcher era onward. He/She can correct me if I'm wrong.
I would have thought that anti-Tory Christians would find as much or more to criticise in the Toryism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as or than in the Toryism of the last quarter of the twentieth.
Well, again, not wanting to speak for buddhsitchristian, but...

There is the idea that the older, pre-neolib version of the Conservative Party maintained some ideal of an organic social order, lubricated with a sense of noblesse oblige, and functioning for the benefit of all its citizens.

Really?

How was concern for the benefit of all “citizens” (which would have been a dangerous word to use in those days) demonstrated by the Tories’ opposition to the French Revolution and its supporters in Britain?

(I realize that it was even more effectively opposed by Burke, so perhaps we could have a thread on whether it was possible to be a Whig and a Christian – it couldn’t be any sillier than this one).

Or by the Tories’ violent counter-measures to popular misery and discontent after the Napoleonic Wars eg Peterloo (“I met murder on the way / He had a face like Castlereagh…”)?

Or by Tory efforts to block the Great Reform Bill of 1832?

I think if he'd just put "an older" rather than "the older"....

One Nation Conservatism as a distinct philosophical strand post-dates all the examples you cite, having really come to the fore under Disraeli (whose allegorical novel Sybil is the core text) in the 1870s. Consequently, I'm not sure how going back to before that period disproves One Nation Conservatism. The Conservatism you're highlighting there is more properly paleo-conservatism.

Even then though the French Revolution example is pretty easily explainable in One Nation terms - you look across the Channel, see the chaos, and think, it's better for everyone frankly if we keep a lid on it - not that that's why they did it, more that a century later I don't think One Nationers would have done anything different but for different reasons.

Very interesting post 1832 though how an awful lot of the those agitating for the Great Reform Act in Parliament subsequently ended up in the Tory party once it had been passed...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we have to pay taxes to be Christians but baptism is optional (leo said that), then paying taxes must be the fundamental sacrament.

The bit about baptism is somewhat out of context and not a direct quotation.

Paul doesn't say taxes are sacramental but he does commend them

quote:
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for land, I fail to see how returning land to it's original owner benefits anybody except people with lots of land and a lavish lifestyle.

The Jubilee was to STOP people accumulating vast amounts of land. The law was promulgated after every tribe was given EQUAL amounts of land.,

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You quote Isaiah 5? I suppose you are also a fan of the temperance movement? You do realize God says He will punish both nobles and masses, don't you? Sorry, leo, sound exegesis is really important to me.

In which case you'd have read Isa 5:11 more carefully - nothing about teetotalism but about more about alcoholism or drunkenness- people getting up first thing in the morning to have a drink and then continuing all day until bedtime.

I like my drink but not to that extent.

[ 10. October 2013, 14:39: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we have to pay taxes to be Christians but baptism is optional (leo said that), then paying taxes must be the fundamental sacrament.
The bit about baptism is somewhat out of context and not a direct quotation.

Paul doesn't say taxes are sacramental but he does commend them
quote:
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Romans 13

Take what you said on the Church thread with what you said on this thread and you clearly get baptism is optional. Yes, Paul commends taxes. He also commends paying your debts in the portion you didn't quote: the death death penalty. Paul supports nothing close to Left Wing politics.

quote:
originally posted by Leo:
The Jubilee was to STOP people accumulating vast amounts of land. The law was promulgated after every tribe was given EQUAL amounts of land.,

Yes, after the tribes were given equal amounts of the Canaanite land, they divided it. It is too late to do that in the UK. In the US, we could probably distribute land. One Republican congressman called for a New Homestead Act. See Marvin's post of why the Jubilee concept is bat shit crazy.

quote:
originally posted by Leo:
In which case you'd have read Isa 5:11 more carefully - nothing about teetotalism but about more about alcoholism or drunkenness- people getting up first thing in the morning to have a drink and then continuing all day until bedtime.

The temperance movement wanted alcohol prohibited because of the societal problems associated with drunkenness. Problems they saw as afflicting the working classes more than the rich. Isaiah pronounces God's judgment on the whole nation both rich and poor.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I think if he'd just put "an older" rather than "the older"....

Yes. And, to refer back to what I actually wrote...

quote:
There is the idea that the older, pre-neolib version of the Conservative Party maintained some ideal of an organic social order, lubricated with a sense of noblesse oblige, and functioning for the benefit of all its citizens.

So, I was describing an idea that some people have, which is not neccessarily my own.

Personally, I've always been a bit skeptical of the way in which some progressives lionize previous generations of Conservatives, as a supposed contrast to the current neo-liberal ones.

Of course I can see a difference between, say, MacDonald and Harper(to go back to Canadian examples), but I find that the sentimental revisionism tends to gloss over the more unsavoury aspects of old-school Toryism. At the end of the day, even when they promoted projects that benefitted the public welfare, they were always basically looking after the interests of business, or at least certain sections of it.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
they were always basically looking after the interests of business, or at least certain sections of it.

I've heard this as the basic foundations of our English speaking democracies. Which might well mean that all of them are founded on pseudo-Christianity, foundations of moral sand.

The appeal of mid-20th century social gospel has much appeal to those of raised with it. In Canada, get rid of profit taking out-of-province corporations, provide more comprehensive services based on government-public owned and Crown corporations, e.g., telephone system, natural gas, electricity, water, oil, insurance (auto, personal, property), some mining and forestry, health. They were able to redirect profits toward underserved people and areas of the country, reduce prices and improve efficiencies. The very opposite that the right wing suggests government management does.

The explicit tying of Christian values to the political and economic policies was so obvious that we didn't really discuss alternatives. We knew in actual figures that we paid less for everything, except taxes, which were the great equalizer. But the combined tax burden plus basic costs of living for essential services were shown to be always cheaper in total or very close to the cheapest.

How the right managed to represent this as both wrong and inefficient, and that God wants the inequalities to be increased is one of the most amazing spin jobs ever seen by this western Canadian. We went from the baptist minister Tommy Douglas, premier of Saskatchewan, talking about "building Jerusalem in this fair land", and helping "the little guy", to this all being considered anti-Christian is one of awe and amazement. We took equality and community together as part of the Christian equation, whereas now, inequality and separation, individualism, have now been branded as Christian.

Perhaps as some of you have posted, that Christianity cannot be captured by any stripe, and that the individual consequences of the political economy are irrelevant to salvation and the Godly direction of a people. But, I have to say, we thought we were supposed to be our brothers' and sisters' keeper. They drummed it into us at school and church, and we listened and it was enscribed on our hearts: that we should share, not be greedy, and that we were responsible for both ourselves and to others. With the denial of something, like heat and light, medicine and shelter because of economic circumstances being an evil. Those principles built Saskatchewan, the province of my birth. And heavily influenced federal politics and the social fabric of Canada.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the Jubilee concept is bat shit crazy.

OK - let us dump Holy Scripture as being 'bat shit crazy'. What authority shall we look to instead? My subjective judgement? Yours?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Africa in particular needs that cheiropteran faeces insanity.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the Jubilee concept is bat shit crazy.
OK - let us dump Holy Scripture as being 'bat shit crazy'. What authority shall we look to instead? My subjective judgement? Yours?

Are we looking to scripture for how to govern a country? Like I've said, the Christian Reconstructionists are the only ones arguing we truly do this. I called their ideas bat shit crazy as well. You would object to almost all of what they propose and every last bit of it has scriptural support. You are only interested in scripture as an authority when it supports your own political opinions and more than happy to ignore or rationalize it away when it does not.

quote:
originally posted by Martin PC no & Ship's Biohazard:
Africa in particular needs that cheiropteran faeces insanity.

When I think Kingdom of Heaven, Mugabe's Zimbabwe always pops into my head.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When I think Kingdom of Heaven, Mugabe's Zimbabwe always pops into my head.

So do you omit 'thy kingdon come, thy will be done on earth...'?

Or do you assume it to apply onto to saving individual souls OUT OF this earth?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

When I say the Our Father, I'm praying to God not the government or political activists. My faith is in God to bring God's kingdom to earth. I don't trust the latter to even know what that would look like.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And you have no role in what you pray for? Is not the Church a 'sign' of the kingdom?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So do you omit 'thy kingdon come, thy will be done on earth...'?

I understand that a fairly major element of the Kingdom of God will be constant praise and worship offered by the people towards God. Should we therefore attempt to pass a law making constant worship of God compulsary for all citizens, whether they want to do so or not, as a way of bringing the Kingdom to earth?

If not, then what's the difference between that and passing a law making giving to the poor compulsary for all citizens, whether they want to or not?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The role I play is in how I live my day to day life where I am not in trying to impose some vision of the Kingdom of Heaven by legislation. I have my own political opinions that aren't represented entirely by any political party in the United States. In the voting booth, I try to pick the candidates that align as closely to those beliefs as possible. Now, if the US was governed exactly how I think it should be, would that be heaven come to earth? Not even close. Those doing the governing will still be human. Humans are prone to corruption. Any radical change from the status quo will only bring another set of problems (Won't Get Fooled Again).

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And you have no role in what you pray for? Is not the Church a 'sign' of the kingdom?

Church, yes. Government, no. Unless you want a theocracy of course.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When I say the Our Father, I'm praying to God not the government or political activists. My faith is in God to bring God's kingdom to earth. I don't trust the latter to even know what that would look like.

and when you pray 'forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us' - is that not a condition on you/me/us? Does it not relate to the law of jubilee? To the cancellation of 3rd world debt? To the paying of decent wages.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So do you omit 'thy kingdon come, thy will be done on earth...'?
I understand that a fairly major element of the Kingdom of God will be constant praise and worship offered by the people towards God. Should we therefore attempt to pass a law making constant worship of God compulsary for all citizens, whether they want to do so or not, as a way of bringing the Kingdom to earth?

If not, then what's the difference between that and passing a law making giving to the poor compulsary for all citizens, whether they want to or not?

Everlasting worship seems a bit pious to me until, i remember that worship is supposed to outflow in lives of justice. The supreme act of worship, the eucharist, involves the taking of matter, God's gift, plus what human labour has transformed it into and then sharing it.

As for whether or not people want to give to the poor, this is a matter of justice. Wealth tends to be built on exploitation - paying poor wages and accruing vast profits. So it isn't giving, it is returning to the people one stole it from in the first place.

The 'kingdom' of God, as i understand it, is summarised in the following:

quote:
When we pray, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth," we are praying for the abolition of individualism and the coming of the higher individuality through collective action as members of God's Home on earth.

Kirby Page

quote:
to the rich members of your congregations, the great subscribers of your salaries O preachers! who turn up at your church or chapel service and follow you in praying, “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon the earth.” Can they, do you think, believe that there is anything in heaven corresponding to the wretched slum-dwellers of Whitechapel or Spitalfields? Are there any in heaven corresponding to these Christian rent-takers, who wax fat at the expense of the downtrodden? What are you ministers and plutocratic members of the rich churches and chapels doing to make earth like heaven? Why, it would need an entire change in the basis of society, and the means whereby incomes are obtained. Are these religious plutocrats and preachers trying to change the basis of society, so that better conditions shall prevail? Assuredly not. On the contrary, they are determined opponents of those who do try to make such changes

T Mann.

quote:
Thy Kingdom come, O God
Thy reign on earth begin
Break with thine iron rod
The tyrannies of sin. is primarily a call for the coming of the Kingdom, and a new world of "peace, and purity, and love," when "war shall be no more," nor "lust, oppression, crime.

Fr. Benson SSJE

[ 11. October 2013, 15:06: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
and when you pray 'forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us' - is that not a condition on you/me/us? Does it not relate to the law of jubilee? To the cancellation of 3rd world debt? To the paying of decent wages.

Who prays that? The only versions I've ever found in a liturgy say either "trespasses" or "sins".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Everlasting worship seems a bit pious to me until, i remember that worship is supposed to outflow in lives of justice. The supreme act of worship, the eucharist, involves the taking of matter, God's gift, plus what human labour has transformed it into and then sharing it.

You're avoiding the question.

quote:
As for whether or not people want to give to the poor, this is a matter of justice. Wealth tends to be built on exploitation - paying poor wages and accruing vast profits. So it isn't giving, it is returning to the people one stole it from in the first place.

Not only is that bollocks, it's irrelevant to the point I was making.

quote:
The 'kingdom' of God, as i understand it, is summarised in the following:
quote:
When we pray, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth," we are praying for the abolition of individualism and the coming of the higher individuality through collective action as members of God's Home on earth.
Kirby Page

The Kingdom of God consists of a bunch of bland, conformist drones following only the will of the collective? Fuck that.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Everlasting worship seems a bit pious to me until, i remember that worship is supposed to outflow in lives of justice. The supreme act of worship, the eucharist, involves the taking of matter, God's gift, plus what human labour has transformed it into and then sharing it.
You're avoiding the question.

I am not sure that you understand the sacramental theology

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
and when you pray 'forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us' - is that not a condition on you/me/us? Does it not relate to the law of jubilee? To the cancellation of 3rd world debt? To the paying of decent wages.
Who prays that? The only versions I've ever found in a liturgy say either "trespasses" or "sins".

οπηειλεμα = 1) that which is owed 1a) that which is justly or legally due, a debt (Strongs)Matthew 6:12

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When I say the Our Father, I'm praying to God not the government or political activists. My faith is in God to bring God's kingdom to earth. I don't trust the latter to even know what that would look like.
and when you pray 'forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us' - is that not a condition on you/me/us? Does it not relate to the law of jubilee? To the cancellation of 3rd world debt? To the paying of decent wages.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Everlasting worship seems a bit pious to me until, i remember that worship is supposed to outflow in lives of justice. The supreme act of worship, the eucharist, involves the taking of matter, God's gift, plus what human labour has transformed it into and then sharing it.
You're avoiding the question.
I am not sure that you understand the sacramental theology

I have the same concerns about you.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

You are sure about what you deny but seemingly unable to give reasons.

As to your earlier thing about not using the bible to govern a nation - of course, now that we live in a multi-cultural and secular society, post-Christian, then Christians are one of a variety of voices. So it is important that we base our voice on Christian/biblical principles.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Presumably therefore you would be happy for those Christians who think that SSM and abortion are sins to advance their version of a Biblical agenda?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
and when you pray 'forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us' - is that not a condition on you/me/us? Does it not relate to the law of jubilee? To the cancellation of 3rd world debt? To the paying of decent wages.
Who prays that? The only versions I've ever found in a liturgy say either "trespasses" or "sins".
οπηειλεμα = 1) that which is owed 1a) that which is justly or legally due, a debt (Strongs)Matthew 6:12

Your materialistic as opposed to spiritual interpretation is pretty much on all fours with that of the Word of Faith Movement; IIRC this was used as justification for Kenneth and Gloria Copeland that debt is a curse and no believer should have a mortgage (see for example The Believer's Voice of Victory). You happy to be in bed with such characters?

[ 11. October 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are sure about what you deny but seemingly unable to give reasons.

As to your earlier thing about not using the bible to govern a nation - of course, now that we live in a multi-cultural and secular society, post-Christian, then Christians are one of a variety of voices. So it is important that we base our voice on Christian/biblical principles.

The Christian Reconstructionists base their voice on Christian/biblical principles. Their voice repeats more of the Bible and in context than yours. The Christian Right that would have nothing to do with Christian Reconstructionists want to base their voice on Christian/biblical principles as well. Left wingers usually scream separation of church and state when they do. One lady coined the term Dominionist to link them with the more extreme proponents of Christian Dominionism.

What you say sounds like Left Wing Christian Dominionism!

I'm against Dominionism.

Being an Anglican, I interpret scripture using tradition and reason. Trespasses and sin has been the way the Church translated the Our Father for centuries. Translation is interpretation. As for reason, if debt is about money, please put a monetary amount on how much money each of us owes God.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Presumably therefore you would be happy for those Christians who think that SSM and abortion are sins to advance their version of a Biblical agenda?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
and when you pray 'forgive us our debts as we forgive those indebted to us' - is that not a condition on you/me/us? Does it not relate to the law of jubilee? To the cancellation of 3rd world debt? To the paying of decent wages.
Who prays that? The only versions I've ever found in a liturgy say either "trespasses" or "sins".
οπηειλεμα = 1) that which is owed 1a) that which is justly or legally due, a debt (Strongs)Matthew 6:12
Your materialistic as opposed to spiritual interpretation is pretty much on all fours with that of the Word of Faith Movement; IIRC this was used as justification for Kenneth and Gloria Copeland that debt is a curse and no believer should have a mortgage (see for example The Believer's Voice of Victory). You happy to be in bed with such characters?

In college, I read my share of liberation theology. Now, my mother bought the Word of Faith Movement hook, line, and sinker. At some point, the realization hit me that the Prosperity Gospel was just the conservative version of Liberation Theology. Since E.W. Kenyon preceded Gustavo Gutierrez by several decades, liberation theology might be properly called the liberal version of the Word Faith Movement.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Spot on.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Debt/Debtors is the translation traditionally used in the Church of Scotland.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trespasses and sin has been the way the Church translated the Our Father for centuries. Translation is interpretation. As for reason, if debt is about money, please put a monetary amount on how much money each of us owes God.

Which is back to Anselm again, which you didn't want to discuss.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Everlasting worship seems a bit pious to me until, i remember that worship is supposed to outflow in lives of justice. The supreme act of worship, the eucharist, involves the taking of matter, God's gift, plus what human labour has transformed it into and then sharing it.
You're avoiding the question.
I am not sure that you understand the sacramental theology
I have the same concerns about you.

To spell it out a little:

quote:
Transformation occurs only in the liturgy and not in the world, there bread and wine remain hoarded, but not offered, concentrated and not broken, maldistributed and not shared. The Eucharist becomes a freak, a contradiction of social reality, instead of a pointer to how reality should be reshaped. If we then go back to read the early Christian Fathers we find how far we have come from their understanding. St. John Chrysostom draws the closest connection between the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and his real presence in the poor and oppressed. We need to recover this connection between the Sacraments and the structures of the world, and to take seriously the social and political consequences of being one body in Christ

Ken Leech, Prayer and Prophecy, 238.

quote:
The Eucharist, that sacrament which makes the Church, is described by Ward as a three-fold movement of “fracture, union and dispersal.

Graham Ward, Cities of God (London: Routledge, 2000), 202.

quote:
The first of these announces the embodiment of an alternative social order such that the material world, de-materialized by the alienation of labor and processes of commodification, becomes the location of an operative and redeeming grace.

Material gifts of bread and wine, broken and lifted up, become a body, the corpus mysticum which when consumed by the faithful consumes the faithful, incorporating them into the corpus verum, the true and actual body of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist so conceived is, thus, the accomplishment of a “material sociality,” an organic, transcorporeal body of inter-relationships what Cavanaugh refers to as “the church’s counter-imagination to that of the state.”

Ward, “The Commodification of Religion

quote:
The second of the three Eucharistic technologies – union – re-humanizes the weak subjects of late capitalism by realizing in them an eschatological personhood …
the dispersal repudiates the zero-sum game of a capitalism where “there just isn’t enough to go around of all the things that people want or need” by establishing and nourishing a new sociality with communitarian and gift-giving axes. If the scandalous identification of Christ with the poor in Matthew 25.40 is taken seriously, and if the Church is really now Christ’s corpus verum, then “the pain of the hungry person [which] is the pain of Christ … is thus also the pain of anyone who is a member of the body of Christ.” The result of this complex subjectivity effected by the dispersal is a radical disruption of the logic of private property and the initiation of a new circulation of material goods, which are always already recognized as gifts (as is the whole Eucharistic liturgy):

The very distinction between what is mine and what is yours breaks down in the body of Christ. We are not to consider ourselves as absolute owners of our stuff, who then occasionally graciously bestow charity on the less fortunate. In the body of Christ, your pain is my pain, and my stuff is available to be communicated to you in your need, as Aquinas says. … In the Eucharist, Christ is gift, giver, and recipient; we are simultaneously fed and become food for others

Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 56

quote:
The Eucharist is not merely an expression of communion in the Church’s life; it is also a project of solidarity for all of humanity. In the celebration of the Eucharist the Church constantly renews her awareness of being a “sign and instrument” not only of intimate union with God but also of the unity of the whole human race.…

Pope John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine §27

quote:
“Do you wish to honor the body of Christ? Do not ignore Him when He is naked. Do not pay Him homage in the temple clad in silk, only then to neglect Him outside where He is cold and ill-clad. He who said: ‘This is my body’ is the same who said: ‘You saw me hungry and you gave me no food’, and ‘Whatever you did to the least of my brothers you did also to me’.... What good is it if the Eucharistic table is overloaded with golden chalices when your brother is dying of hunger. Start by satisfying his hunger and then with what is left you may adorn the altar as well”.

Saint John Chrysostom, In Evangelium S. Matthaei

quote:
You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle, if you do not pity Jesus in the slums. Now mark that -- this is the Gospel truth. If you are prepared to say that the Anglo-Catholic is at perfect liberty to rake in all the money he can get no matter what the wages are that are paid, no matter what the conditions are under which people work; if you say that the Anglo-Catholic has a right to hold his peace while his fellow citizens are living in hovels below the levels of the streets, this I say to you, that you do not yet know the Lord Jesus in his Sacrament…. And it is folly -- it is madness -- to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the Throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children. It cannot be done.

Bp. Frank Weston

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trespasses and sin has been the way the Church translated the Our Father for centuries. Translation is interpretation. As for reason, if debt is about money, please put a monetary amount on how much money each of us owes God.
Which is back to Anselm again, which you didn't want to discuss.

In the Our Father, we ask God to "forgive our trespass/sins/debts as we forgive our debtors."

Leo says debts in the Our Father refers to monetary debt.

So, for Leo's interpretation to make sense, we must owe God money.

As to not willing to talk about Anselm, I posted this.

quote:
If I take your bait, I want the effort to be worth it. You say the idea of Jesus paying a debt we couldn't pay was invented by Anselm, right? If I can prove it did, will you agree to stop posting on Ship of Fools for a year?

You never responded. Admittedly, I made a typo. So, let me be clear what I'm offering. If I can prove the idea that Jesus paid a debt we couldn't pay wasn't invented by Anselm, will you agree to stop posting on Ship of Fools for a year? Well...will you?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Didn't see the bet.

Given the way you prooftext, I am sure you will see the notion of debt, very different from Anselm's feudal metaphor, and read it back into NT and the fathers. Just like people do with SA.

Who would be able to adjudicate as to who was the winner?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Everlasting worship seems a bit pious to me until, i remember that worship is supposed to outflow in lives of justice. The supreme act of worship, the eucharist, involves the taking of matter, God's gift, plus what human labour has transformed it into and then sharing it.
You're avoiding the question.
I am not sure that you understand the sacramental theology
I have the same concerns about you.
To spell it out a little:

quote:
Transformation occurs only in the liturgy and not in the world, there bread and wine remain hoarded, but not offered, concentrated and not broken, maldistributed and not shared. The Eucharist becomes a freak, a contradiction of social reality, instead of a pointer to how reality should be reshaped. If we then go back to read the early Christian Fathers we find how far we have come from their understanding. St. John Chrysostom draws the closest connection between the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and his real presence in the poor and oppressed. We need to recover this connection between the Sacraments and the structures of the world, and to take seriously the social and political consequences of being one body in Christ
Ken Leech, Prayer and Prophecy, 238.

quote:
The Eucharist, that sacrament which makes the Church, is described by Ward as a three-fold movement of “fracture, union and dispersal.
Graham Ward, Cities of God (London: Routledge, 2000), 202.

quote:
The first of these announces the embodiment of an alternative social order such that the material world, de-materialized by the alienation of labor and processes of commodification, becomes the location of an operative and redeeming grace.

Material gifts of bread and wine, broken and lifted up, become a body, the corpus mysticum which when consumed by the faithful consumes the faithful, incorporating them into the corpus verum, the true and actual body of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist so conceived is, thus, the accomplishment of a “material sociality,” an organic, transcorporeal body of inter-relationships what Cavanaugh refers to as “the church’s counter-imagination to that of the state.”
Ward, “The Commodification of Religion

quote:
The second of the three Eucharistic technologies – union – re-humanizes the weak subjects of late capitalism by realizing in them an eschatological personhood …
the dispersal repudiates the zero-sum game of a capitalism where “there just isn’t enough to go around of all the things that people want or need” by establishing and nourishing a new sociality with communitarian and gift-giving axes. If the scandalous identification of Christ with the poor in Matthew 25.40 is taken seriously, and if the Church is really now Christ’s corpus verum, then “the pain of the hungry person [which] is the pain of Christ … is thus also the pain of anyone who is a member of the body of Christ.” The result of this complex subjectivity effected by the dispersal is a radical disruption of the logic of private property and the initiation of a new circulation of material goods, which are always already recognized as gifts (as is the whole Eucharistic liturgy):

The very distinction between what is mine and what is yours breaks down in the body of Christ. We are not to consider ourselves as absolute owners of our stuff, who then occasionally graciously bestow charity on the less fortunate. In the body of Christ, your pain is my pain, and my stuff is available to be communicated to you in your need, as Aquinas says. … In the Eucharist, Christ is gift, giver, and recipient; we are simultaneously fed and become food for others
Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 56

quote:
The Eucharist is not merely an expression of communion in the Church’s life; it is also a project of solidarity for all of humanity. In the celebration of the Eucharist the Church constantly renews her awareness of being a “sign and instrument” not only of intimate union with God but also of the unity of the whole human race.…
Pope John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine §27

quote:
“Do you wish to honor the body of Christ? Do not ignore Him when He is naked. Do not pay Him homage in the temple clad in silk, only then to neglect Him outside where He is cold and ill-clad. He who said: ‘This is my body’ is the same who said: ‘You saw me hungry and you gave me no food’, and ‘Whatever you did to the least of my brothers you did also to me’.... What good is it if the Eucharistic table is overloaded with golden chalices when your brother is dying of hunger. Start by satisfying his hunger and then with what is left you may adorn the altar as well”.
Saint John Chrysostom, In Evangelium S. Matthaei

quote:
You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle, if you do not pity Jesus in the slums. Now mark that -- this is the Gospel truth. If you are prepared to say that the Anglo-Catholic is at perfect liberty to rake in all the money he can get no matter what the wages are that are paid, no matter what the conditions are under which people work; if you say that the Anglo-Catholic has a right to hold his peace while his fellow citizens are living in hovels below the levels of the streets, this I say to you, that you do not yet know the Lord Jesus in his Sacrament…. And it is folly -- it is madness -- to suppose that you can worship Jesus in the Sacraments and Jesus on the Throne of glory, when you are sweating him in the souls and bodies of his children. It cannot be done.
Bp. Frank Weston

And, Leo, nothing is stopping you from doing any of that. They key here is...YOU. Anglo-Catholic Socialism doesn't work apart from the Sacraments. For them, only a proper Catholic Christian could be a proper Socialist. Catholic Christianity, as defined by the Anglo-Catholic Socialists, is socially conservative. I'll bet you aren't quite as interested in legislating that are you?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Didn't see the bet.

Given the way you prooftext, I am sure you will see the notion of debt, very different from Anselm's feudal metaphor, and read it back into NT and the fathers. Just like people do with SA.

Who would be able to adjudicate as to who was the winner?

Oh...it will be obvious who the winner is. Do you believe Anselm invented the notion that Jesus paid a debt we ourselves could not pay? Yes or no

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for whether or not people want to give to the poor, this is a matter of justice. Wealth tends to be built on exploitation - paying poor wages and accruing vast profits. So it isn't giving, it is returning to the people one stole it from in the first place.

Do you believe that there's an objective right answer to the question of what is a fair price or fair wage or fair rent or fair profit ? Or can it only ever be a matter of personal opinion ?

And do you believe that it is possible for anyone to become rich without exploitation, without unfairness ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

And what is rich? How much money can you make without Leo accusing you of stealing it? How do we arrive at that number?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The Conservatism you're highlighting there is more properly paleo-conservatism.

Paleo or not, acceptable to us today or not, it was still the pre-Disraeli Toryism held by eminent Christians such as Wesley and Shaftesbury.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Any in excess of your neighbour who has need.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

What is need? What is excess? What is any? Who gets to make that determination? What is the legal definition of neighbor?

All questions that must be answered before gospel legislating can happen.

[ 12. October 2013, 10:43: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What is need? What is excess? What is any? Who gets to make that determination? What is the legal definition of neighbor?

All questions that must be answered before gospel legislating can happen.

Sorry and all, but these are simply excuses not to do something.

"The house next door is burning down!"
"We must form a committee about the flammability of modern housing at once!"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Didn't see the bet.

Given the way you prooftext, I am sure you will see the notion of debt, very different from Anselm's feudal metaphor, and read it back into NT and the fathers. Just like people do with SA.

Who would be able to adjudicate as to who was the winner?

I also suspect you would seek to trave 'dept' back to lutron - ransom - which for some of the fathers was paid to the devil, not to god. Traveit back further to the OT and you'll see that no money in involved whatsoever.

In any case, I introduced Anselm into this discussion earlier, not to argue whether it was scriptural or not but to say that there is a whole ragbag of issues that right wingers are concerned about because their whole life view and politics is conditioned because of the view of God as punitive and vindictive and the view that grace is some sort of commodity that can be earned, bought and sold.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
do you believe that it is possible for anyone to become rich without exploitation, without unfairness ?

Best wishes,

Russ

No. However 'good' a particular individual may be, s/he has inherited wealth that was based on historical exploitation e.g. in the city in which i live, its prosperity was based on the slave trade. The wealth of the city will effect business rates etc. before an entrepreneur even starts to make any money.

[ 12. October 2013, 11:30: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What is need? What is excess? What is any? Who gets to make that determination? What is the legal definition of neighbor?

All questions that must be answered before gospel legislating can happen.
Sorry and all, but these are simply excuses not to do something.

"The house next door is burning down!"
"We must form a committee about the flammability of modern housing at once!"

Who is saying you shouldn't do anything? Go and do. On the other hand, if you want to argue that those who have certain opinions about the size and scope of government aren't Christians, then answer the questions. Nobody is preventing you from giving all of your excess to your neighbor in need.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It's not the social conservatives. It's the rich ones who associate their wealth with social conservatism so as to justify themselves.

These are indeed a problem, and I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that some of them are engineering what's going on in Congress these days according to some scheme too labyrinthine for most of us to guess. (Remember that Michael Moore believes that they engineered the crash of 2008 even though it swept Republicans out of office.) But a glance at the stock market should suffice to establish that they'll be none too pleased with the consequences if the right-wing radicals keep increasing unemployment among federal workers or destroy the "full faith and credit" of the government. Those Texans have wanted to secede for a long time, so I wouldn't put anything past them. But otherwise I don't see the logic. In any event, their success (if that's what it would be) depends on hordes of garden variety "social conservatives" in the 99% who persist in voting for these lunatics, deluded though they may be.

[ 12. October 2013, 11:57: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by leo:
I also suspect you would seek to trave 'dept' back to lutron - ransom - which for some of the fathers was paid to the devil, not to god. Traveit back further to the OT and you'll see that no money in involved whatsoever.

No, you brought up Anselm when I said Jesus paid a debt we couldn't pay. I didn't say the debt was monetary or paid to God. You brought up Anselm again when I asked you to tell me how much money we owe God. It's simple really. If the Our Father means the monetary debt of individuals and nations when it says "as we forgive our debtors," then it stands to reason that when we pray "forgive us our debts" that it also refers to monetary debt. So, how much do we owe God?
If we don't owe God any money, then debts means something other than monetary debt.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

For record, i said:

quote:
06 October, 2013 19:11

Anselm, bordering on PSA – spiritualist (should have reads ‘spiritualising) away an incarnational faith.

07 October, 2013 19:01

I don't think that is true about atonement theories other than Anselm and would need some quotations to convince me.

Also about the incarnation being denied by those who see incarnation, rather than atonement, as the main thing.

08 October, 2013 15:06

One's theology of incarnation and atonement are the bedrock that influences all one's other views. Hence the idea of a vindictive God in PSA strongly influences American criminal police - the death sentence. Also its warmongering. Both examples of right-wingery.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Presenting one side of a conversation isn't really the record. I don't even know why you reposted what you said or what it was supposed to prove. You did leave out your post on October 11 at the top of page 6.

quote:
originally posted by leo:
Which is back to Anselm again, which you didn't want to discuss.

This you said in response to me asking how much money we owed God. I'll ask it for a third time in a different way. If we are to forgive third world debt because in the Our Father we pray forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors then Jesus is referring to monetary debt. However, if Jesus is referring to monetary debt in the Our Father, then it stands to reason that God also forgives us of a monetary debt. How much does each of us owe God? We could put a number of third world debt. This has little to do with the atonement and everything to do with your interpretation of the Our Father.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Who is saying you shouldn't do anything? Go and do.

I'm fine with my level of neighbourliness and giving, thanks.

What you seem to be dodging is that by repeatedly saying "but what does this mean? Nothing can be done until these questions are answered!" is your own responsibilities.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
that God also forgives us of a monetary debt. How much does each of us owe God? We could put a number of third world debt.[/QB]

To put the question back, is what we would owe to God (in an abstract 'amount of letting off' needed) more, less or vaguely equivalent [or unable to be determined] to what the third world owes us*.

*ignoring any history behind the debt.

[ 12. October 2013, 14:14: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Who is saying you shouldn't do anything? Go and do.
I'm fine with my level of neighbourliness and giving, thanks.

What you seem to be dodging is that by repeatedly saying "but what does this mean? Nothing can be done until these questions are answered!" is your own responsibilities.

So, you can be a Christian and decide your happy with your level of neighborliness and giving but those with more money than you can't?

Our Lord had plenty to say about hypocrisy.

quote:
originally posted by Jay-Emm:
To put the question back, is what we would owe to God (in an abstract 'amount of letting off' needed) more, less or vaguely equivalent [or unable to be determined] to what the third world owes us*.

*ignoring any history behind the debt.

In my opinion, they are apples and oranges. There is no definitive Christian position on third world debt. I don't do prooftexting. What is the Christian doctrine regarding debt forgiveness that should apply to both people, banks, and governments? What makes it Christian? How does it apply when taken as a universal? The OP made a rather spectacular claim So far, the arguments in support of it have been spectacularly weak.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In my opinion, they are apples and oranges. There is no definitive Christian position on third world debt.

Ahh that explains it, to me (at least in theory) "apples and galaxies" are more like "apples and apples" than "galaxies and what God has done for us".

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We're all the lazy steward. Everything we've been given, given to do is by the Master. And Christians are spectacularly worldly - "nominal" - as a rule and if not, then useless. Not shrewd. In being Christian. At winning people for the kingdom now. For a start we are inhospitable. We don't party. We don't have open doors.

Tomorrow we're having lunch at church. The vicar's asked us to bring more food as we ran out last time (well they did ... we didn't go ...). I didn't think to invite the at least fifty homeless and vulnerably housed we see on a Friday night until this morning. My wife said that we couldn't cope as we can't cope with the needy of the church ...

We're pathetic.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Who is saying you shouldn't do anything? Go and do.
I'm fine with my level of neighbourliness and giving, thanks.

What you seem to be dodging is that by repeatedly saying "but what does this mean? Nothing can be done until these questions are answered!" is your own responsibilities.
So, you can be a Christian and decide your happy with your level of neighborliness and giving but those with more money than you can't?

There's an awful tone of aggressive defensiveness in your posts. Yes, I do some - though as Martin points out, it's pretty pathetic, really - but every time someone says "giving to the poor is a gospel imperative", up you pop with "who's poor? Who's rich? How very dare you, you hypocrite!"

Sometimes asking questions is seeking answers, and sometimes it's avoiding answers. Again, as Martin intimates, the answers are actually obvious, just that we find the questions overwhelming.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
There is no definitive Christian position on third world debt. I don't do prooftexting. What is the Christian doctrine regarding debt forgiveness that should apply to both people, banks, and governments? What makes it Christian? How does it apply when taken as a universal? The OP made a rather spectacular claim So far, the arguments in support of it have been spectacularly weak.

There is a very strong concensus in England, with Christians of all denominations supporting Christian Aid and the other main aid agencies in the jubilee 2000 campaign, Drop the Debt and subsequent campaigns. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been a key player in investigating banking scandals and pay day loan extortions.

Where there is a lack of agreement is on the basic right wing/left wing issue. It seems to be that the right wing's religion is an ortherwordly affair that seeks to avoid the incarnational nature of Christianity - by this i don't mean Chalcedonian definitions but the implications of God becoming man to usher in the kingdon/reign of God and commanding us to act as agents and signs of that reign.

In the end, it seems to be that right wing Christianity and left wing Christianity are two religions that happen to share the same scriptures but read them in entirely contradictory ways.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I'm still trying to find where in our shared scriptures you see such compelling evidence for your political opinions which are apparently more important to you than the essentials of the Christian Faith.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still trying to find where in our shared scriptures you see such compelling evidence for your political opinions which are apparently more important to you than the essentials of the Christian Faith.

Well, of course you are, because if you ever found them, you might feel the pressure to change.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still trying to find where in our shared scriptures you see such compelling evidence for your political opinions which are apparently more important to you than the essentials of the Christian Faith.

No-where,
For the implications on what the essentials of the Christian faith has to say about what a christian political opinion should not value as good (which is of course totally different to which methods work towards them*, and how we work together):
all the Torah, all twelve prophets, all the gospels, acts and at least a majority of Pauls letters, I suspect not from some books between Josh&Esther (and for many of the rest, the odd chapter), can't think of anything beyond 1John of the top of my head.

*Tory Shaftsbury was mentioned earlier, who did do a lot of good for child workers, the insane, women workers, male workers, slaves. (though most of the resolutions he made were passed by Whig governments). Communist Russia starved millions.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still trying to find where in our shared scriptures you see such compelling evidence for your political opinions which are apparently more important to you than the essentials of the Christian Faith.
Well, of course you are, because if you ever found them, you might feel the pressure to change.

Right back at you.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still trying to find where in our shared scriptures you see such compelling evidence for your political opinions which are apparently more important to you than the essentials of the Christian Faith.
Well, of course you are, because if you ever found them, you might feel the pressure to change.
Right back at you.

So you think after searching the Scriptures I should be less clear on who the poor are, who my neighbours are, and what my obligations to them should be? Oooookay. As snappy comebacks go, that left almost everything to be desired.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"giving to the poor is a gospel imperative"

That's as maybe, but the fact remains that "forcing others to give to the poor" isn't.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

This isn't about your obligations. You've made it clear that how you meet your perceived obligations is none of my business. Fair enough. However, you then have no business telling somebody with more money than you how much they should or should not give to whom they should give it. A billionaire has has the same right to tell you they are quite happy with their level of neighborliness and giving.

Like I said, I'm well aware of what Jesus had to say about hypocrisy.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"giving to the poor is a gospel imperative"
That's as maybe, but the fact remains that "forcing others to give to the poor" isn't.

How about Group A agreeing to give to the poor in exchange for Group B paying for e.g. nuclear weapons, corporate welfare, surveillance infrastructure, or other stuff the B's don't particularly like? Because that's what's really happening in most democracies. Sometimes it's called horse-trading, or smoke-filled back-room deals, or a tradeoff, or the currently unpopular term compromise. It's only called (ETA edit) "forcing" in Libertarian Hyperbolese.

(And this only works in a pluralistic democracy because there are people besides Christians who also care for the poor.)

[ 12. October 2013, 16:32: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

That's a very simplistic way of looking at how individuals view taxes and government spending. Still, if you want to look at it that way, that's fine. What does it have to do with Christianity and if right wing people can be Christians? I don't think there is a Christian position on government spending on any of the issues you listed.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Christianity, as usual, lags way behind the others Big Sister. Although they're usually sneakily behind the great humanist moves, starting everything from the Samaritans and AA to the trade unions and the welfare state, but they can't do it publically as the church.

And Beeswax Altar, yeah Jesus paid His taxes for Caesar's military expansion, but He wouldn't vote for it and when He IS Caesar, through US one way or another, He won't raise taxes for those evils.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still trying to find where in our shared scriptures you see such compelling evidence for your political opinions which are apparently more important to you than the essentials of the Christian Faith.

Political; change for social justice and peace IS the essence/essential of an outlived Christian faith.

Otherwise, as the Apostle James said, 'Faith without works is dead.'

The more i read your posts, the more i am convinced that we belong to different religions which both claim the title 'Christian' but of which one denies the outworking of the incarnation.

You want to take people out of the world but i believe God wants to save the world, THIS world.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I'm still waiting for you demonstrate how the Incarnation necessarily leads to left wing politics. I'm still waiting for you follow through on explaining how scripture leads to left wing politics. You throw prooftexts out there but then drop them when your interpretation is challenged. Best I can tell, you believe Christianity supports left wing politics because most of the Christians in England are left wing. Well, most of the Christians in US are right wing and there are more Christians in the US than in the UK. What does that prove? Proves absolutely nothing to me. But...you seem to put stock in that sort of thing.

Now, you quote James. Once again, the quote has nothing to do with politics. From the pulpit, you can lecture people all you want about giving and doing more because works should accompany faith. Once the government forces them to give more money, then they aren't doing good works because its only a good work if it's done of their own volition unless the Sacrament of Paying Taxes works ex opere operato (from the work done). In other words, leo, you are only responsible for the good works that accompany you faith. You want to join those up thread who tell me they are perfectly happy with how much they give and it's none of anybody's business?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This isn't about your obligations. You've made it clear that how you meet your perceived obligations is none of my business.

That's not what I said. In fact, I think the reverse is true. It is your business how I meet my obligations to my neighbours and the wider society. I am as responsible to you as I am to them, because that's how the church works. We're responsible for keeping each other on the straight and narrow.

I'm accountable to you for what I spend and how I spend it. Which is a troubling thought, but one which is perfectly in tune with scripture. So yes, a poor Christian has as much right (if not more) to ask a rich Christian to justify how they spend their money.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still waiting for you demonstrate how the Incarnation necessarily leads to left wing politics. I'm still waiting for you follow through on explaining how scripture leads to left wing politics. You throw prooftexts out there but then drop them when your interpretation is challenged. Best I can tell, you believe Christianity supports left wing politics because most of the Christians in England are left wing. Well, most of the Christians in US are right wing and there are more Christians in the US than in the UK. What does that prove? Proves absolutely nothing to me. But...you seem to put stock in that sort of thing.

Now, you quote James. Once again, the quote has nothing to do with politics. From the pulpit, you can lecture people all you want about giving and doing more because works should accompany faith

The pulpit should never be used to give a lecture.

Incarnation - the Word became flesh - what does that mean for you? For those made in God's image?

And it seems to me that you don't understand Incarnation to be anything other than a magic spell.

Does your capitalist religion have anything to do with the world that God came to save?

Do you give a monkeys about-the poor to whom Christ came in a stable?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

You said you were happy with your neighborliness and level of giving. Are you the ultimate earthly authority on whether or not you are being neighborly enough or giving enough? If so, then rich Christians only need to satisfy their own conscience about how much they are giving.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Beeswax Altar - I wonder why you left your right wing Calvinist sect to join the TEC and infect it with your right wing religion.

TEC is a mainline religion that believes in the incarnation.

You don't seem to, except for some sort of spiritualism of the after life.

Is Christianity about an afterlife devoid of having any concern for this world?

If not, how do you call yourself a Christian?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still waiting for you demonstrate how the Incarnation necessarily leads to left wing politics. I'm still waiting for you follow through on explaining how scripture leads to left wing politics. You throw prooftexts out there but then drop them when your interpretation is challenged. Best I can tell, you believe Christianity supports left wing politics because most of the Christians in England are left wing. Well, most of the Christians in US are right wing and there are more Christians in the US than in the UK. What does that prove? Proves absolutely nothing to me. But...you seem to put stock in that sort of thing.

Now, you quote James. Once again, the quote has nothing to do with politics. From the pulpit, you can lecture people all you want about giving and doing more because works should accompany faith

The pulpit should never be used to give a lecture.

Incarnation - the Word became flesh - what does that mean for you? For those made in God's image?

And it seems to me that you don't understand Incarnation to be anything other than a magic spell.

Does your capitalist religion have anything to do with the world that God came to save?

Do you give a monkeys about-the poor to whom Christ came in a stable?

I believe in the Incarnation as it is defined by the Creeds. Don't know what seeing the Incarnation as being a spell. On the other hand, you seem to throw the term out there to justify any number of non sequiturs. Capitalism is not my religion. Neither capitalism nor socialism is inherently Christian. Socialism does appear to be your religion. God came into the world to save the entire world regardless of their income. Whether or not a person is saved has little to do with how much money they have in their banking account. Did Jesus life, death, and resurrection accomplish nothing since as far as we know it didn't lift a single person out of poverty?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Whether or not a person is saved has little to do with how much money they have in their banking account. Did Jesus life, death, and resurrection accomplish nothing since as far as we know it didn't lift a single person out of poverty?

It's our job, as his body, to lift people out of poverty. Not justify the rich. Jesus didn't justify the rich, he ripped into them and said it was harder for them to get into heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle. He very much took a stance in the battle the rich wage on the poor, and it wasn't neutrality, and it wasn't on the side of the rich.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Beeswax Altar - I wonder why you left your right wing Calvinist sect to join the TEC and infect it with your right wing religion.

TEC is a mainline religion that believes in the incarnation.

You don't seem to, except for some sort of spiritualism of the after life.

Is Christianity about an afterlife devoid of having any concern for this world?

If not, how do you call yourself a Christian?

Apparently, this is hard for you to accept Leo but a person can have a concern for this world without voting the way you think they should. My faith is in God to save the world and bring God's kingdom to earth. I do not trust any government either right or left wing to do it. I don't trust political activists to tell me what kingdom come looks like. Silver and gold is not the main thing the Church has to give but at least it's better than being content with telling others how to vote and being content when their political party wins.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"giving to the poor is a gospel imperative"
That's as maybe, but the fact remains that "forcing others to give to the poor" isn't.

There's Old Testament precedent. Farmers were to leave the corners of the fields unharvested for the poor, and in certain years debts were to be forgiven. No doubt some farmers and creditors weren't too keen about those requirements, but when they were neglected, prophets appeared on the scene.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Whether or not a person is saved has little to do with how much money they have in their banking account. Did Jesus life, death, and resurrection accomplish nothing since as far as we know it didn't lift a single person out of poverty?
It's our job, as his body, to lift people out of poverty. Not justify the rich. Jesus didn't justify the rich, he ripped into them and said it was harder for them to get into heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle. He very much took a stance in the battle the rich wage on the poor, and it wasn't neutrality, and it wasn't on the side of the rich.

I suppose you can do a better job than the rest of the people on the thread in defending that assertion. Jesus came into the world to save people by lifting them out of poverty but did so in a way that would require his followers to somehow get control of all the governments in the world? You think he could have gone about it in a more efficient way.

Personally, I'm a fan of the Acts. Acts tells us how Jesus disciples responded to living with Jesus. What did they do? Did they attempt to take over a government? Did they steal from people who weren't Christians and give the money to the poor? No, they preached the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness. They also had everything in common. Now, I'd think that if you were looking for a biblical model of how to lift the poor out of poverty it would be through intentional communities that shared everything in common. Of course, it's easier to live a middle class lifestyle and rant about how the government needs to make the rich pay more taxes.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"giving to the poor is a gospel imperative"
That's as maybe, but the fact remains that "forcing others to give to the poor" isn't.
There's Old Testament precedent. Farmers were to leave the corners of the fields unharvested for the poor, and in certain years debts were to be forgiven. No doubt some farmers and creditors weren't too keen about those requirements, but when they were neglected, prophets appeared on the scene.

Now, Alogon, that sounds awfully close to left wing Dominionism. [Eek!]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I find it hard if not impossible to reconcile Christianity with right-wingery.
In the US, statistics show that social conservatives give far more money to charities that help the poor than social liberals give.

Government programs are frequently very inefficient, and many needy people fall through the cracks.
Interesting stats, the ones I've read say conservatives give more but are giving to their churches and not to community charities. If you are giving 10% to the church you probably don't have money remaining to give to the public library or the free health clinic or the food pantry or the adult literacy program or the mentoring at risk school children program or etc.

The claim that conservatives give more than liberals was based on a study by Arthur Brooks in 2006. The methodology has been criticized because the question of "What is a Conservative?" was determined based on positions on social issues rather than economic liberalism. Social conservatives can and often do include economic conservatives, but can also include Roman Catholics, Conservative and Orthodox Jews and Muslims who may also embrace government assistance for the poor, public education and other state programs.

Michele Margolis and Michael Sances performed the same survey using questions about political orientation and found that there is no essential difference in charitable giving between liberals and conservatives.

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I suppose you can do a better job than the rest of the people on the thread in defending that assertion. Jesus came into the world to save people by lifting them out of poverty but did so in a way that would require his followers to somehow get control of all the governments in the world? You think he could have gone about it in a more efficient way.

This is a very interesting paragraph. I wonder, however, why it is in a response to me, as it has almost nothing to do with what I said. Ah well. Can't have everything.

quote:
Did they steal from people who weren't Christians and give the money to the poor?

Taxes are not theft. Get over it. That attitude is completely against Paul and Jesus and all the Prophets.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Scripture supports paying taxes but demands taxes be fair. Tax evasion is wrong. What constitutes fair taxes is a political not a theological question. Maybe, I'd be open to seeing it as a theological question if I could see some evidence of it in scripture or tradition. Like I've already said, scripture seems to support a 10% flat tax but I'm not suggesting that anything other than a 10% flat tax is unbiblical.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Scripture supports paying taxes but demands taxes be fair.

Then stop calling it theft. Thank you.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Scripture supports paying taxes but demands taxes be fair. Tax evasion is wrong. What constitutes fair taxes is a political not a theological question. Maybe, I'd be open to seeing it as a theological question if I could see some evidence of it in scripture or tradition. Like I've already said, scripture seems to support a 10% flat tax but I'm not suggesting that anything other than a 10% flat tax is unbiblical.

If the government, or the church for that matter wants 10% of the Invitations to Tender, Business Cases, Project Briefs and Feasibility Studies I produce it is welcome to them.

The world has moved on.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What constitutes fair taxes is a political not a theological question.

True but the political question depends very firmly on the ontological* view which in turn depends very firmly on theological** (or equivalents) view.

In short what we consider fair, depends on what we think of God/the universe/everything. How (including apathy) we act on unfairness depends on what we think of God/the universe/everything.
[the implications on taxes as a specific instance of policies are obvious]

(translations)
*pretentious word for the family of thoughts including "what is a person, what do we know about them" (I think)
**pretentious word for ... including "what is God like, what do we know about God"

[ 12. October 2013, 21:58: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Scripture supports paying taxes but demands taxes be fair.
Then stop calling it theft. Thank you.

Doesn't matter if it's technically theft or not. Scripture is more interested in what we voluntarily do with our own possessions. Using scripture to support take more money from other people because scripture tells you to care for the poor is a bit of a convenient dodge.

quote:
originally posted by Sion Sais:
The world has moved on.

You'll get no argument from me. Trying to build a case for any form of modern government from scripture will be based entirely on a collection of prooftexts supporting the form of government one likes and discounting all the ones supporting something else. Thus, the OP is completely wrong in suggesting right wing people can't be Christians as would a thread asking if left wing people can be Christians. One's political positions say absolutely nothing about whether or not one is a Christian. Frankly, political discussions in a church setting that go beyond a friendly exchange of ideas are distractions that cause more smoke than fire and get in the way of what the Church should be doing to further the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What constitutes fair taxes is a political not a theological question.
True but the political question depends very firmly on the ontological* view which in turn depends very firmly on theological** (or equivalents) view.

In short what we consider fair, depends on what we think of God/the universe/everything. How (including apathy) we act on unfairness depends on what we think of God/the universe/everything.
[the implications on taxes as a specific instance of policies are obvious]

(translations)
*pretentious word for the family of thoughts including "what is a person, what do we know about them" (I think)
**pretentious word for ... including "what is God like, what do we know about God"

I believe the word you are looking for is anthropological not ontological. Ontology is the study of being. Defining it beyond that would take too much time.

What we consider fair taxes may depend on our theology. However, we can share nearly the exact same theology and still differ on political issues. Even if I agree that God demands a robust safety net, I could still disagree with it being provided and administered by a large central government and funded mostly by a progressive income tax.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

One biblical verse*
Amos 5:11
"You trample the poor, stealing the grain through taxes and unfair rent"

Now the second of these is potentially a personal matter, the first however isn't.
And is clearly the prophet declaring living in accordance with God's will inconsistent with supporting/implementing a regressive scheme of taxation(/spending?)

Now it is true that you then have the argument of whether to not tax at all and not (institutionally) support (which might be consistent with some right wing views) or to tax all and (institutionally) support (which might be consistent with some left wing views) is more in accordance with this (and of course there are many more possibilities, and they are not all well ordered).

But the question is clearly there.

*for what it's worth found by manually scanning, rather than backwards via a concordance.
(I'm not too sure if there's a translation issue either)

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I believe the word you are looking for is anthropological not ontological. Ontology is the study of being. Defining it beyond that would take too much time.

(previous post cross posted)
I definitely should have used that (and yes I had forgotten it), though that's a bit "what we do" (which was what attracted me when I saw the wiki).

quote:

What we consider fair taxes may depend on our theology. However, we can share nearly the exact same theology and still differ on political issues. Even if I agree that God demands a robust safety net, I could still disagree with it being provided and administered by a large central government and funded mostly by a progressive income tax.

True and I'd love to have that debate and yes it would all be not quite economics, and not really theological (though some may be more pretty).

But at the moment we're still on the first bit...and that is more theology than economy (though of course, practicality does have effects, and the two questions are bound up on each other).

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Is it talking about regressive taxes or saying that taxes shouldn't be too high period? I can tell you how a left winger would interpret it and how the right winger would interpret it. Personally, I would say it depends on how you define poor but nobody really wants to define any terms just legislate based on sprooftext.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You said you were happy with your neighborliness and level of giving. Are you the ultimate earthly authority on whether or not you are being neighborly enough or giving enough? If so, then rich Christians only need to satisfy their own conscience about how much they are giving.

Yeah, I'm sure there's a thread in Hell called "Read for comprehension".

Am I the ultimate earthly authority on whether or not I am being neighbourly enough or giving enough?

Of course not. That's what I said previous page, and I stand by that being the Scriptural, Christian response to this question.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

(on the Amos tangent)
I don't fully know (I did raise that it could be read either way).

But none the less it is a biblical verse about tax rates and God being bothered. And as such it does rule out some potential political options about taxes as being completely against the verse. Some of them not just theoretical.

(actually your first post on the page did kind of make the distinction, which I'd forgotten after my earlier post.
I took it as granted that once we get the statement "Taxes should be fair" as a biblical/theological statement, "what is fair" is self evidently a theological question. And hence re-asserted the first and forgot the second. In that tangent.)

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Political; change for social justice and peace IS the essence/essential of an outlived Christian faith.

Otherwise, as the Apostle James said, 'Faith without works is dead.'

I think you're right to encourage all who wish to follow Christ to invest effort in trying to make the world a better place, to increase peace and justice. (as well as worshipping and praying, of course).

But wrong to suggest that seeking political change is the only valid approach; many good Christians work for voluntary organisations rather than trying to get the State to do things.

And wrong to suggest that the priority should be equalising people's incomes (this seems to be what left-wing people mean by the phrase "social justice") .

Perhaps you're confusing an end - the hungry fed, the sick healed etc - with a particular means of seeking to achieve that ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus didn't justify the rich, he ripped into them and said it was harder for them to get into heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle.

Let’s try to avoid referring to the rich as “they / them”.

As middle-class Westerners, we are the rich, not some Other from a left-wing tract with top hat, frock coat, spats and a Gladstone bag overflowing with banknotes.

I have a very modest lifestyle by Western standards, but having read a little bit of history, tried to keep up with current events, and worked for years in a country of the developing world, I am aware that I am fabulously well off.

The fact that some people own cars much more expensive cars than mine is far less important, at a global level, than the fact that I own a car at all.

On the other hand, there is also the danger of trying to appear humble, penitent and self-deprecatory by saying “we / us”, when we really mean “the members of the society or culture to which we belong, whom we dislike”.

C.S. Lewis exposed this strategy in his essay The Dangers Of National Repentance.

What “we” actually do in view of our relative wealth, whether individually or politically, is, of course, something that can never be infallibly dictated on the basis of shonky, proof-texting exegesis (“The Bible says…!”) and set out in a definitive programme.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
do you believe that it is possible for anyone to become rich without exploitation, without unfairness ?

Best wishes,

Russ
No. However 'good' a particular individual may be, s/he has inherited wealth that was based on historical exploitation e.g. in the city in which i live, its prosperity was based on the slave trade. The wealth of the city will effect business rates etc. before an entrepreneur even starts to make any money.

Reference to the slave trade is actually an argument against the proposition you're putting forward. If all wealth is bad, it matters not two hoots how it was obtained.

Seems to me pretty obvious that there are both morally wrong and morally legitimate ways of increasing one's income.

If you invent a better widget, or volunteer to work overtime at the widget factory, then there's nothing wrong in the fact that your income will be higher than that of your neighbour who doesn't.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
God came into the world to save the entire world regardless of their income. ?

I repeat that your notion of 'salvation' seems to be about taking people OUT of this world into some next world. Pie in the sky when they die but, meanwhile, they can remain in poverty and be exploited.

The root of 'salvation' in NT Gk has to do with healing and wholeness. Jesus healed people in THIS world.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

According to some here in the UK I might be considered right-wing; my American friend AL considers me a dangerous Pinko; my SWP supporting kin called me Fascist; my English friends call me a Welsh Nationalist.

To someone who runs a hedge-fund I'm a pauper but to the average call-centre worker in the developing world I'm rich.

Perhaps we'd do well to lose the labels?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you're right to encourage all who wish to follow Christ to invest effort in trying to make the world a better place, to increase peace and justice. (as well as worshipping and praying, of course).

But wrong to suggest that seeking political change is the only valid approach; many good Christians work for voluntary organisations rather than trying to get the State to do things.

Of course that is true. Only a few people (as is apparent on this thread - and I'm not one of them) have a sufficient grasp of economics and political theory etc to become effectively involved in political change. There are some matters that we need to leave to the experts. Just as I don't have the necessary skills to drive a bus. On the other hand, if I am on a bus that is being driven erratically or dangerously it's my duty to point it out.

It's all very well to say 'different political systems are equally valid ways of achieving the same, agreed, ends.' But if it becomes clear that - for example - conservatives are actually sabotaging provision for the poor and needy, and directing all their policies to increasing the wealth of a few, those of us who are passengers ought to say so loud and clear.

The discredited theory of a 'trickle down' of wealth from rich to the poor, is IMHO unchristian because satiating the demands of the rich is always the priority. Even if it worked, which it doesn't.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
do you believe that it is possible for anyone to become rich without exploitation, without unfairness ?

Best wishes,

Russ
No. However 'good' a particular individual may be, s/he has inherited wealth that was based on historical exploitation e.g. in the city in which i live, its prosperity was based on the slave trade. The wealth of the city will effect business rates etc. before an entrepreneur even starts to make any money.
Reference to the slave trade is actually an argument against the proposition you're putting forward. If all wealth is bad, it matters not two hoots how it was obtained.

Seems to me pretty obvious that there are both morally wrong and morally legitimate ways of increasing one's income.

If you invent a better widget, or volunteer to work overtime at the widget factory, then there's nothing wrong in the fact that your income will be higher than that of your neighbour who doesn't.

Best wishes,

Russ

It doesn't really spoil the point, the tie to the slave trade (and other events) is why Leo's point is made.

There are more or less moral and immoral of getting money from other people for a single transaction.

But the fact remains that a vast amount of the asymmetry between Liverpool and African city is based on the past and continuing exploitation.
If our widget inventor invents a better widget, great. But the money that paid for his education (if he came from their, regardless if he invented his widget here or africa), the money that british customers spend (regardless of whether he came from here or africa), if sold in africa, the lack of competition might well be a result of acts in the past.

He can't change the past (and the effects are complicated as well).
But none the less his* excess wealth and others poverty is dependent on the consequences of bad things AS well as his own skill, hard work (for which yes he should benefit).
And the future is up for grabs*.

If we lived in a fairy-tale world that was different (I can't really imagine it), then all unusually high concentrations of wealth would be good. But we don't, we live in one where bad things happen and they affect other people.

*and of course when I say his, it applies to those who don't make the widget (i.e. us), just we by definition haven't gained as much (just a lot). Which isn't a virtue.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
God came into the world to save the entire world regardless of their income. ?
I repeat that your notion of 'salvation' seems to be about taking people OUT of this world into some next world. Pie in the sky when they die but, meanwhile, they can remain in poverty and be exploited.

The root of 'salvation' in NT Gk has to do with healing and wholeness. Jesus healed people in THIS world.

And the Church has nothing to offer but other people's silver and gold? All the people in history who have died with fewer possessions than the poorest of the poor in Western society were damned? The sick Jesus didn't heal while on earth never got healed? Poverty can be eliminated and we will still need be healed and made whole. Medial science can raise the average life span to a 100 and people will still need to be healed. The middle class need to be healed and made whole. The rich need to be healed and made whole. Everybody regardless of how much money they have in their bank account need to be healed and made whole. We don't need you to heal and make us whole. We don't need me to heal and make us whole. We sure don't need the government to heal and make them whole. We need the grace of God to make us whole and that we receive through the Church and her sacraments.

Oh and apparently, I now have to offer evidence that the resurrection of the death, heaven, and life everlasting are Christian. Fine. See all the places in scripture that mention the resurrection, life after death, and heaven. The Nicene Creed mentions the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And the Church has nothing to offer but other people's silver and gold?

I'm bemused by your whole line of argument throughout this thread. You take what each poster has said (anything that anyone even slightly left of centre might have ever agreed with in history, you take agin), put the most belligerent spin on it, then attack that straw man so vigorously that it's nothing but ash.

I am still completely lost as to what you might believe regarding how the Christian faith should actually have an impact on what we do, how we organise ourselves as communities and nations, and what we might vote for. If the answer is not at all, then fair enough. But even the right-wingers will disagree with you there.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I don't think I'm misrepresenting what Leo (or anybody else on this thread) is saying. I still don't know what you meant by you being happy with your level of giving and neighborliness. If you aren't the ultimate earthly arbiter of whether you are neighborly enough or give enough, then who cares if you are happy with it?

Christianity should influence how Christians live their lives including their politics. How it influences them is between the individual and God. What I object to is saying those with differing opinions can't be Christians. As far as I'm concerned, both right wing authoritarians and left wing anarchists can both be Christians (and visa versa).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you aren't the ultimate earthly arbiter of whether you are neighborly enough or give enough, then who cares if you are happy with it?

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. If I'm not the ultimate earthly arbiter of whether I'm neighbourly enough or give enough, then I'm expecting other people to care, and give me guidance.

You've just turned it arse-about-face and tried to make the opposite point.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

But, you are happy with how much you give. How many people really have enough information about your financial situation and level of giving to say one way or the other? Do you make that information available to just anybody? If you do, whose opinion matters the most if not your own?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I am still completely lost as to what you might believe regarding how the Christian faith should actually have an impact on what we do, how we organise ourselves as communities and nations, and what we might vote for.

Here's my opinion on that. It should inspire you to whatever you think it should inspire you to so far as disposal of your own assets is concerned. If a group of you want to get together as a collective to pool your assets and dispose of them as the group sees fit, that's also cool. But if the group decides to conscript others into it against their will, while still taking their assets and disposing of them the way the group had decided, that's not ok.

Does that sound reasonable?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Here's my opinion on that. It should inspire you to whatever you think it should inspire you to so far as disposal of your own assets is concerned. If a group of you want to get together as a collective to pool your assets and dispose of them as the group sees fit, that's also cool. But if the group decides to conscript others into it against their will, while still taking their assets and disposing of them the way the group had decided, that's not ok.

Does that sound reasonable?

Of course that doesn't sound reasonable. It sounds absolutely barking mad. The inevitable and insoluble flaw in the libertarian wank-fest you propose is that it takes as a basic premise a complete and utter tabula rasa*. Such a thing has never existed since neolithic times. We all come from somewhere to somewhere else, we all have obligations and duties, we are all responsible to our neighbours as they are responsible to us.

No man is an island. Unless you happen to own an island, and all the sea around it, and have an army to defend it, except then you're responsible for your army... it's all gone horribly wrong, hasn't it?

(*blank slate)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

What does Christianity have to do with that? Christianity is merely one tool people use to support to justify their preconceived political opinions. An alien given a Bible and told to construct a complete society based entirely on the contents wouldn't come up with anything close to a Western democracy. Give the alien some reading material from the first 1500 years of Christian history and the alien still wouldn't come up with anything like a Western democracy.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The inevitable and insoluble flaw in the libertarian wank-fest you propose is that it takes as a basic premise a complete and utter tabula rasa*. Such a thing has never existed since neolithic times.

I agree with the premise "society exists". That we all live together is hardly a controversial claim.

But that fact, in and of itself, says nothing about how we should organise society. "We all live together, therefore..." what? Your thesis seems to be that the "therefore" is along the lines of "...we should all share everything as equally as possible for the good of all", but that's not some immutable law of the universe. It's just one political theory among many, and history clearly shows that there are plenty of other forms of society that work just as well.

So yes, the man who is an island needs his army. But that doesn't say anything about how he should look after it, and it certainly doesn't mean he should be compelled to share everything he has with the soldiers. As long as they remain healthy and alert enough to fight off any would-be invaders it doesn't really matter if they have a luxury apartment each and the finest food and drink or a single shared barracks and basic rations.

The same principle easily scales up to modern nation states. So while I need the rest of society to be functioning in order to have the things I want, that doesn't mean I have to ensure that every single individual has a fantastic standard of living. As long as they're doing the things I need them to do (enforcing the law, cleaning the streets, driving the trains, growing the food, etc.) the rest is unimportant to me. And I, in turn, am unimportant to pretty much everyone else. We're all trying to keep our costs to the minimum required to keep society working so that we have the maximum possible resources to use for ourselves.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

If you are keeping your expenditure on street sweeping, defence, and so on to a minimum, so that you keep as much of your own resources for yourself as possible, doesn't that imply that street sweepers, soldiers, etc will have rather few resources for themselves?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If you are keeping your expenditure on street sweeping, defence, and so on to a minimum, so that you keep as much of your own resources for yourself as possible, doesn't that imply that street sweepers, soldiers, etc will have rather few resources for themselves?

For sure. In exactly the same way that my boss keeping his expenditure on data analysis to a minimum means I have less for myself than I would in the fantasy land where he pays me lots more for no rational reason.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We're all trying to keep our costs to the minimum required to keep society working so that we have the maximum possible resources to use for ourselves.

Actually not everyone is. I know a fair few who aren't. And in any case who gets to determine what the minimum required to keep society working is?

(By the way in response to the OP I must say that right wing people definitely can be Christian - I have been completely humbled by the comparison between the personal lives of some right-wing Christians on comparing their generosity and conduct with my own. Which also further contradicts your view of what everyone is doing).

[ 14. October 2013, 10:52: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We're all trying to keep our costs to the minimum required to keep society working so that we have the maximum possible resources to use for ourselves.
Actually not everyone is. I know a fair few who aren't. And in any case who gets to determine what the minimum required to keep society working is?

It's entirely possible (absolutely certain) that different people have different definitions of what "society working" means, and therefore of how much they have to pay to make it happen. There's no independently-defined "minimum" that everyone should adhere to, I'm saying that's a choice each person makes for themselves.

Some people even choose to have significantly less for themselves so that other people they'll never meet or be affected by in any way can have slightly more. I am not one of them.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But you do seem to take rather an instrumental view of people- that the value that they assign to them really boils down to what they do, or can do, for you. Is that a fair statement of your position, and if it is, how do you think that this fits with a faith which tells us to love our neighbour as ourselves, teaches that we are all equally precious in the sight of God, and urges us to love others as and because God loves us?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But you do seem to take rather an instrumental view of people- that the value that they assign to them really boils down to what they do, or can do, for you. Is that a fair statement of your position,

Pretty much.

quote:
and if it is, how do you think that this fits with a faith which tells us to love our neighbour as ourselves, teaches that we are all equally precious in the sight of God, and urges us to love others as and because God loves us?

Funny thing, love. Is it more loving to infantilise another person by always giving them what they need or to grant them the dignity of standing (or falling) on their own? To let them make their own decisions in life - even if they're very bad ones - or to make those decisions for them? And if I would rather stand on my own and make my own decisions, doesn't loving my neighbour as myself demand that I do the same for him/her?

But remember that Christianity is also a faith which teaches that none of us are capable of being or doing good without God. So if I fail to be or do good it's because the necessary input from God isn't present, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if I fail to be or do good it's because the necessary input from God isn't present, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's no independently-defined "minimum" that everyone should adhere to, I'm saying that's a choice each person makes for themselves.

And that's your libertarian fantasy. In reality, we don't get to choose for ourselves. I don't, you don't, the people you work for don't and the people who work for you don't, either.

What happens is we have a consensus on what society is and costs. Then we distribute those costs amongst ourselves. You cannot benefit from society without contributing to the costs of it, and you, personally, don't get a choice.

You can, of course, attempt to opt out - emigrate, go and live in the woods somewhere and insist you're a Freeman on the land or somesuch bollocks, while still enjoying the clean air and land rights brought to you by a wider society who've decided in their infinite wisdom and compassion that withdrawing those benefits is actually more trouble than it is to provide them to you free and gratis along with everyone else who pays for them.

Being a libertarian in a modern, post-industrial society is just about doable: you just have to hope there aren't too many of you, because too many parasites kill the host.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Ah, but Marvin, I'm not sure that what you've just been saying is necessarily connected to the point that you make in your second paragraph. I can see that the point about the freedom to stand or fall can follow from the principle of love- although we could argue about the circumstances under which it does, empirically, put that principle into practice. It's an application of the princple of free will- if God loves us by giving us free will we mkust repsect the free will of others.

But there's no necessary reason at all why that position should be accompanied by an instrumental view of the value of other people- a view which, in your case,also places you at the centre of your own universe because your yardstick is not merely utility but utility to you. (And that, arguably, is also placing you where God should be.)

If you are going to argue that your instrumental view is consistent with the Christian precept of 'love your neighbour as yourself' (and, implicitly, love your neighbour because and as God loves you) you will need to make that argument in its own terms.

[ 14. October 2013, 12:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's what Nietzsche says somewhere, isn't it? If you get rid of God, you become God, or anyway, a god, at the centre of your universe.

"Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

The Gay Science.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it more loving to infantilise another person by always giving them what they need or to grant them the dignity of standing (or falling) on their own?

That is a worthwhile argument but it wasn't the basis of your original position - which was all to do with what people's use to you was rather than what was best for them. If you are in fact interested in the latter that's a different argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But remember that Christianity is also a faith which teaches that none of us are capable of being or doing good without God. So if I fail to be or do good it's because the necessary input from God isn't present, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Non sequitur. Simply because B always follows A does not mean that we can conclude not A must always have preceded every not B. In other words because you cannot do good without God does not imply that whenever you fail to do good this is because of the lack of God.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: But remember that Christianity is also a faith which teaches that none of us are capable of being or doing good without God. So if I fail to be or do good it's because the necessary input from God isn't present, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Yes you can. You can start doing good.

[ETA: the input of God is always there. He's always there with you, inspiring you to do good. Whether you act on it is up to you.]

[ 14. October 2013, 12:52: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But you do seem to take rather an instrumental view of people- that the value that they assign to them really boils down to what they do, or can do, for you. Is that a fair statement of your position, and if it is, how do you think that this fits with a faith which tells us to love our neighbour as ourselves, teaches that we are all equally precious in the sight of God, and urges us to love others as and because God loves us?

We certainly put a value on their street sweeping and soldiering just like Martin's boss puts a value on his data analyzing. A street sweeper wouldn't sweep for nothing. A soldier in a voluntary army wouldn't soldier for nothing. Martin wouldn't analyze data for nothing. Nobody is suggesting they should. What we are talking about here is how much they should get paid for those services not for being human.

quote:
originally posted by Doc Tor:
What happens is we have a consensus on what society is and costs. Then we distribute those costs amongst ourselves. You cannot benefit from society without contributing to the costs of it, and you, personally, don't get a choice.

Most societies have a broad consensus on what society is but the devil is in the details. There is certainly disagreement over how we distribute those costs among ourselves. At best, you've made the case for everybody paying the exact same amount of tax. I believe the OT supports that. A flat tax makes more sense and again the OT supports that.

Just saying that everybody benefits from society and should share the costs doesn't in and of itself support progressive taxation. From that premise, one could argue that everybody should pay some tax and that those receiving benefits should work for those benefits. Of course, one could argue that the rich benefit more from society so should pay more but that's hardly a given.

I believe society is based on mutual responsibility and obligation. The concept isn't inherently left, right, or center. Politics seems to be more about the rights of me and mine and the obligations of you and yours. One faction of the right obsess over the rights of the rich while telling everybody else to pull themselves up from their benefits. Many on the left focus exclusively on the responsibility of the rich but absolve the poor of all responsibility for how they live. And, no, I don't buy the whole it's mean to blame the poor for being poor line. I grew up in a place where almost everybody lived on the margins between being poor and being able to make a comfortable living. It sure as heck wasn't the actions of the rich that made the difference. How we achieve a society based on mutual responsibility and obligation to one another is up for debate. I have my ideas. Unfortunately, scripture and most of Christian tradition don't help much with the specifics.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But there's no necessary reason at all why that position should be accompanied by an instrumental view of the value of other people

Nor is there any reason why it shouldn't.

quote:
- a view which, in your case,also places you at the centre of your own universe because your yardstick is not merely utility but utility to you. (And that, arguably, is also placing you where God should be.)

We are all at the centre of our own personal universes. We all decide which beliefs we will live by and what we count as important.

When I die, my universe will end. Plenty of other universes will go on, but that one will be no more.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it more loving to infantilise another person by always giving them what they need or to grant them the dignity of standing (or falling) on their own?
That is a worthwhile argument but it wasn't the basis of your original position - which was all to do with what people's use to you was rather than what was best for them. If you are in fact interested in the latter that's a different argument.

My original position concerned how much I should pay towards other people's costs, not about how I view/treat them as people. Two different things, two different answers.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But there's no necessary reason at all why that position should be accompanied by an instrumental view of the value of other people
Nor is there any reason why it shouldn't.

Oh, no reason why you shouldn't hold both of those positions. But I had understood you to suggest that there was a connection between the two. There isn't: they are independent of each other.

quote:
- a view which, in your case,also places you at the centre of your own universe because your yardstick is not merely utility but utility to you. (And that, arguably, is also placing you where God should be.)
We are all at the centre of our own personal universes. We all decide which beliefs we will live by and what we count as important.

When I die, my universe will end. Plenty of other universes will go on, but that one will be no more.

When I talk about being at the centre of your own universe, I didn't mean in terms of working out your own ethical position; I meant in terms of judging the value of other things, or in this case of other people, according to their contribution to your own well-being. If you are suggesting- and to be fair, it may be that i'm assuming that you are suggesting this rather than that you have explicitly done so- that this is consistent with any orthodox Christian teaching, I'd like to know your grounds for making that suggestion. (But if you are not, then of course we're arguing from different premises.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it more loving to infantilise another person by always giving them what they need or to grant them the dignity of standing (or falling) on their own?
That is a worthwhile argument but it wasn't the basis of your original position - which was all to do with what people's use to you was rather than what was best for them. If you are in fact interested in the latter that's a different argument.
My original position concerned how much I should pay towards other people's costs, not about how I view/treat them as people. Two different things, two different answers.

Well actually, you went on to say

quote:
As long as they're doing the things I need them to do (enforcing the law, cleaning the streets, driving the trains, growing the food, etc.) the rest is unimportant to me.

You only want to pay people the minimum necessary to ensure that they do what is valuable to you. in other words, their value to you is directly related to what they can do for you. That is absolutely about how you view/ treat them as people.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
When I talk about being at the centre of your own universe, I didn't mean in terms of working out your own ethical position; I meant in terms of judging the value of other things, or in this case of other people, according to their contribution to your own well-being.

Not necessarily my own well-being, but certainly my own goals. Some of my goals may require a (hopefully temporary) drop in personal well-being.

quote:
If you are suggesting- and to be fair, it may be that i'm assuming that you are suggesting this rather than that you have explicitly done so- that this is consistent with any orthodox Christian teaching, I'd like to know your grounds for making that suggestion. (But if you are not, then of course we're arguing from different premises.)

I'm not saying it's perfectly in line with Christian teachings, but I don't think it's completely incompatible either.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You only want to pay people the minimum necessary to ensure that they do what is valuable to you. in other words, their value to you is directly related to what they can do for you. That is absolutely about how you view/ treat them as people.

How many of my resources I'm willing to spend on someone isn't the only measure of how valuable they are to me, nor is it the only benchmark of how well I treat them.

But yes, to a large degree I do see most other people as irrelevant to me. And they see me the same way. What's the problem?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

[QUOTE][qb]If you are suggesting- and to be fair, it may be that i'm assuming that you are suggesting this rather than that you have explicitly done so- that this is consistent with any orthodox Christian teaching, I'd like to know your grounds for making that suggestion. (But if you are not, then of course we're arguing from different premises.)
I'm not saying it's perfectly in line with Christian teachings, but I don't think it's completely incompatible either.

Ok, but why do you think that?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And they see me the same way.

Many of them don't. I don't really know how many, of course, but would it change things for you if you found that many of them in fact didn't?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ok, but why do you think that?

Because Christianity is all about how you treat people, not how you view them. Just because someone is unimportant to me doesn't mean I'll treat them badly should we ever meet.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And would paying someone a bare subsistence wage if that is all that is necessary in order to get them to do what you would want them to do, because you want to give up as few of your own resources as possible, always be an acceptably Christian way of treating someone? If so, why? If not, in what circumstances (if any) would it be acceptably Christian?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And they see me the same way.
Many of them don't.

The vast majority of them don't even know I exist, thus cannot possibly view me as important to them. Even in my own city, to most of the people who see me I'm just a random face in the crowd, forgotten as soon as they look away. To well over 99.99% of the world my death would mean absolutely nothing, unless I managed to die in a particularly newsworthy way.

quote:
I don't really know how many, of course, but would it change things for you if you found that many of them in fact didn't?

It would freak me the hell out, is what it would do. Like having a bunch of stalkers running around thinking I'm an important part of their lives when I don't even know who they are [Ultra confused]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And would paying someone a bare subsistence wage if that is all that is necessary in order to get them to do what you would want them to do, because you want to give up as few of your own resources as possible, always be an acceptably Christian way of treating someone? If so, why? If not, in what circumstances (if any) would it be acceptably Christian?

What constitutes a properly Christian wage? Why not more? Why not less? Is it acceptable to fire somebody rather than pay them the wage you think they deserve? What about replace them with a machine?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even in my own city, to most of the people who see me I'm just a random face in the crowd, forgotten as soon as they look away.

You talk as if there are only two options. "They are unimportant to me" vs "I know and love them intimately".

I think there are plenty of other options - one of them might be "I might not know who they are but I want to live in a society where everyone has a certain minimum standard of opportunity and facility". The minimum standard being fixed not on any criteria of how it impacts me, but on some notion of what is just.

You first used "unimportant" in the sense that you didn't care how those people lived as long as there was a certain minimum standard to keep society functional. Now you are using "unimportant" to mean you don't know their names and their lives don't directly influence you.

[ 15. October 2013, 05:17: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And would paying someone a bare subsistence wage if that is all that is necessary in order to get them to do what you would want them to do, because you want to give up as few of your own resources as possible, always be an acceptably Christian way of treating someone? If so, why? If not, in what circumstances (if any) would it be acceptably Christian?

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What constitutes a properly Christian wage? Why not more? Why not less? Is it acceptable to fire somebody rather than pay them the wage you think they deserve? What about replace them with a machine?

All good questions, but why are they an answer to the first question?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You first used "unimportant" in the sense that you didn't care how those people lived as long as there was a certain minimum standard to keep society functional. Now you are using "unimportant" to mean you don't know their names and their lives don't directly influence you.

Same thing.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

To you maybe, but not necessarily to everyone else. Which was the point I was making.

And I would have thought a similar point is made by the good Samaritan.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You first used "unimportant" in the sense that you didn't care how those people lived as long as there was a certain minimum standard to keep society functional. Now you are using "unimportant" to mean you don't know their names and their lives don't directly influence you.
Same thing.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all these "unimportant" people can (and do) have a profound impact on your life, whether you like it or not. From even a purely utilitarian point of view, caring about who they are and how they live is in your direct best interests.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And would paying someone a bare subsistence wage if that is all that is necessary in order to get them to do what you would want them to do, because you want to give up as few of your own resources as possible, always be an acceptably Christian way of treating someone? If so, why? If not, in what circumstances (if any) would it be acceptably Christian?

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What constitutes a properly Christian wage? Why not more? Why not less? Is it acceptable to fire somebody rather than pay them the wage you think they deserve? What about replace them with a machine?
All good questions, but why are they an answer to the first question?

Albertus implies that a true Christian wouldn't hire a worker at a subsistence wage. I'm wondering what a true Christian would pay a worker and under what circumstances. I'm also wondering if the government should then force all businesses to pay a Christian wage even if they aren't Christian.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

There is a long history of debate about the just price and the just wage, going back at centuries; Catholic Social Teaching is especially strong on this. The first-order issue is whether or not this matters; where to set it, and the complexities of doing so, are second-order issues.
I don't believe that the government should tell anybody to do anything solely on the ground that it is 'the (or even 'a') Christian thing' to do. There are other premises on which to argue about wage levels, not all of which are about 'rational' economics. Christians can seek to influence government by arguing for things which they believe are common ground between their faith and some other positions; and over time, as Robin Gill argues, churches and Christians can legitimately seek to transpose Christian values (whatever that may mean) into the general values of society.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Well like I said they are good questions so I'll nibble.

I think that the salary a Christian pays should be *at least* what is considered fair by consensus in the society one is in. I note for some societies that will be subsistence or below, but in many that is not the case and therefore its a useful guide.

It does not need to be one that affords luxury (which again needs to be judged relative to the society) but should allow basic human essentials.

I think a Christian should be active in the direction of justice. A Christian should oppose slavery and mistreatment of workers, and that would include bonded labour or subsistence wages.

But back to my original point I think one could logically hold a variety of views on that and still believe that it is not a Christian thing to pay a worker subsistence wages.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
I think that the salary a Christian pays should be *at least* what is considered fair by consensus in the society one is in. I note for some societies that will be subsistence or below, but in many that is not the case and therefore its a useful guide.

Sounds like a Christian should at minimum pay an employee the minimum wage because the minimum wage is what the consensus of society considers fair. How else would you determine what society thinks is a fair wage for any given work? I'm leery of saying society as a whole should play a role in defining what is Christian or not.

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
It does not need to be one that affords luxury (which again needs to be judged relative to the society) but should allow basic human essentials.

Essentials are essentials regardless of society. Arguably, a subsistence wage provides enough for the essentials but nothing else. Anything more than the essentials are a luxury. The question then becomes how much luxury must a Christian wage afford. Even subsistence versus luxury depends on the person. What a single breadwinner of a family of 6 considers subsistence would be luxury to a family of two with both individuals working. What if a Christian can only pay what would be subsistence to a family of four? Should the Christian employer only hire workers who have to provide for 3 or less? Should the Christian employer not create the job because he can't afford to pay what would be a subsistence wage for a family of 6?

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
I think a Christian should be active in the direction of justice. A Christian should oppose slavery and mistreatment of workers, and that would include bonded labour or subsistence wages.

Even allowing that Christianity is diametrically opposed to slavery which would be hard to argue from scripture and tradition (wish scripture and tradition did more forcefully oppose it), paying a subsistence wage is a far cry from slavery. A worker working at a subsistence wage can always find a better paying job. If they can't find a better paying job, they always have the opportunity to acquire more skills. Perhaps, circumstances prevent them from doing any of that. However, those circumstances aren't because the employer owns his employees.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm leery of saying society as a whole should play a role in defining what is Christian or not.

How else can we do it? It seems difficult to have a universal standard because societies are so different. It would be unethical to pay someone 20 dollars a day for working full time as your gardener in the UK but not in South Sudan.

Also I think Christians are bound to obey the law of the land as far as it is possible. Therefore we have already given society a role in determining what Christians should be.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Essentials are essentials regardless of society.

I don't think they can be. A flushing toilet would be regarded as essential in the UK and keeping a worker to a standard where that wasn't available would be wrong. But that same standard couldn't be applied to Christians in Southern Sudan.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A worker working at a subsistence wage can always find a better paying job.

I think that's very unlikely to be the case. Otherwise they wouldn't be on the subsistence wage. You say they might get skills, and the employer isn't to blame if they can't. I think the term usually applied here is exploitation. I might not be to blame if you are desperate for cash and have nowhere else to sell your priceless family heirloom, but if I sense your desperation and pay one-tenth the price for it that is morally wrong, exploitative, and not Christian.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Subsistence wage means the lowest wage on which a worker can survive. So, paying a worker $20 a day wouldn't be paying a subsistence wage in most developed countries. Shelter is part of survival. Even the most modest of shelters come with a flush toilet in the US. I'll bet the same is true of the UK.

As for Christians being bound to follow law, my moral theology professor argued that Christians were only obliged to follow natural and divine law not penal law. Now, he was a left winger who wanted to preserve his right to morally disobey any law he didn't like. Best I could tell, said professor ultimately saw himself as what constituted natural and divine law. I would say that something relative and arbitrary as what constitutes a fair wage should fall under divine or natural law. For the record, I openly disagreed with him and argued Christians should follow the law of the land unless it violated divine or natural law and paying workers a minimum wage clearly does not violate natural or divine law.

People acquire skills and find better paying jobs all the time. Do employers who pay minimum wage exploit their workers? Students working for minimum wage are happy to make $7.50/hour. A person who takes an early retirement might be happy to work for minimum wage because it augments their pension with extra money so they can enjoy their retirement.

[ 15. October 2013, 17:07: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Beeswax Altar: Now, he was a left winger who wanted to preserve his right to morally disobey any law he didn't like.

I thought left-wing people wanted to bring government into everything?

(It's so difficult being left-wing these days if you have to do all those conflicting things at the same time.)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Do business and religion exist in separate spheres? In separate magesteriums? Is it thus okay for a grocery/supermarket chain, which has excellent profitability and dividends to shareholders, to employee workers as part timers, less than 28 hours per week, so as to avoid having to put the employees on the benefit plan? Or to reduce the wages of the part timers because they can? Business reasoning would say yes to each of these wouldn't it?

At what point does a minimum wage and minimum hours of work become ethical decisions? Is it right for someone to have to get 3 jobs that all pay low wages, provide no benefits and insecure hours, so as to make enough to live on? One could say that the market can decide, but we have an entire generation locally who are doing this, and if we picked any 3 of them and had each of them work fulltime at any one of the 3 jobs each holds, they'd have much much more than they do presently.

I'm seeing the purely economic reasoning as anti-human as well as anti-Christian.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

He did want to bring government into everything. Unfortunately, politicians who disagree with him frequently get elected and pass laws he doesn't like. He wants to obey them. Of course, all the laws he likes are all based on divine or natural law.

I always found that curious.

For the record, I liked the guy. He was my spiritual director. Even considered naming my child after him if it was a boy.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Do business and religion exist in separate spheres? In separate magesteriums? Is it thus okay for a grocery/supermarket chain, which has excellent profitability and dividends to shareholders, to employee workers as part timers, less than 28 hours per week, so as to avoid having to put the employees on the benefit plan? Or to reduce the wages of the part timers because they can? Business reasoning would say yes to each of these wouldn't it?

Can a supermarket chain be religious? Work at supermarkets don't require much skill. The work can be done by high school students, able bodied retirees, and people looking for part time work. Suppose I'm a man or woman who has children and a spouse who has a full time job with benefits. I want to make extra money but still be able to spend most of my time with my children. Wouldn't I be looking for a part time job such as working at a supermarket?

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
At what point does a minimum wage and minimum hours of work become ethical decisions? Is it right for someone to have to get 3 jobs that all pay low wages, provide no benefits and insecure hours, so as to make enough to live on? One could say that the market can decide, but we have an entire generation locally who are doing this, and if we picked any 3 of them and had each of them work fulltime at any one of the 3 jobs each holds, they'd have much much more than they do presently.

Plenty of people are willing to work for minimum wage who aren't being exploited. Problem is that people who need to make more than minimum wage can't get a job that doesn't pay any better than minimum wage. More often than not that is because they made poor choices in life. How is that the fault of the supermarket chain? Other times, people put to much faith in a corporation and the corporation lets them down. Both are problems that I'm not sure have solutions that are clearly Christian or not Christian.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I don't think this is entirely correct BA. Try graduating and looking for work during a recession. I went through this for 6 years when young, and I'm watching my kids go through the same. All extremely bright, but there's nothing even if highly qualified. In my time the early baby boomers were tying up all the jobs, and currently it is them and the Gen Xers. Gen X has been waiting for a long time to get in to good positions, and they will plug them all for the Millenials I fear.

I solved the dilemma by delaying it, and getting 2 more degrees and scholarships. My kids see that even that won't get them anything.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Problem is that people who need to make more than minimum wage can't get a job that doesn't pay any better than minimum wage. More often than not that is because they made poor choices in life.

Or because they didn't have the opportunity to make any choices at all.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I don't think this is entirely correct BA. Try graduating and looking for work during a recession. I went through this for 6 years when young, and I'm watching my kids go through the same. All extremely bright, but there's nothing even if highly qualified. In my time the early baby boomers were tying up all the jobs, and currently it is them and the Gen Xers. Gen X has been waiting for a long time to get in to good positions, and they will plug them all for the Millenials I fear.

I solved the dilemma by delaying it, and getting 2 more degrees and scholarships. My kids see that even that won't get them anything.

So...the problem is a lack of good jobs in the fields college graduates pursued. What is the clear Christian solution to a problem of a lack of well paying jobs in the fields folks want to pursue? I wish I knew what it was. I'd run for office if I knew even a purely secular solution to that problem. My suspicion is a real solution would involve policies that neither right nor left would like regardless if they were Christian.

quote:
originally posted by Angloid:
Or because they didn't have the opportunity to make any choices at all.

I've met very people who had no choices. People who had only a few good choices and didn't take any of them, yes, I have met but not very man people with no choice. I've met people with a lot of excuses. Don't we all have obligations and responsibilities?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Albertus implies that a true Christian wouldn't hire a worker at a subsistence wage. I'm wondering what a true Christian would pay a worker and under what circumstances. I'm also wondering if the government should then force all businesses to pay a Christian wage even if they aren't Christian.

Just under 100 years ago, the Tribunal here charged with the determination of wages devised what became known as the basic wage. That sum was calculated as being the amount needed for a man* to feed, clothe and house himself, his wife and 2 children each week. For a long time thereafter, that amount was calculated on a regular basis, and there were percentage margins for skill added. That comes very close to what here is being called a social wage.

*I know, but this is the phrase used in the original decision, and was an appropriate one at the time.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Sounds like subsistence wage to me. Besides, a single man could live in relative luxury but a man with three or more children would be exploited. Not sure why the decision of a Tribunal makes the wage a Christian wage.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Albertus implies that a true Christian wouldn't hire a worker at a subsistence wage. I'm wondering what a true Christian would pay a worker and under what circumstances. I'm also wondering if the government should then force all businesses to pay a Christian wage even if they aren't Christian.

[/QUOTE]
I don't think there'd be a one size fits all, lots of things vary from country to country and from age to age. Even (as you observed) basics like food and sanitation vary [a person in a city needs a better sewage system and food system than a person with a field, a person with the field needs better personal farming time, and the opportunity cost associated with them changes].

And the debate about to what extent a Christian country can coerce non-Christians is a valid debate (though I think others may watch with interest who holds this principle on what issues)

But the debate varies on and off this (admittedly) thorny issue, and the issue of what one should do as a Christian.

I'm not sure there's a simple biblical verse that says whats 'fair'. Lots to say that whatever fair is we should be (or at least try to be, yes things are not perfect but that doesn't mean we should make things worse so God has more to fix). A description of a different economic system (that in some ways is more equal, in other ways being strange), complex people held up as good/bad.

But I think there are lots of cases where it's clear (in an ideal world) what more fair/less fair is. Harder to define how to balance them when they conflict with the real world.
But in general if your moving in the 'wrong direction' then it's a bit of a warning flag (it might be nothing, but I'd check and err on the cautious side). Some of these flags might be.

The first is when what you actively consider them physically expendable for your benefit. Classic American slave labour would qualify. Even this is not total firefighter commanders risk their crews lives...but at that point the starting assumption should not be "it's fine".

A second would be when what you consider fair for yourself is higher. Again there may be good reasons. Similarly if what you do makes things worse for the poor and better for the rich, again it might be ok.

(Related but not quite the same)
A third would be when you have to go to effort to make a situation better for yourself against the law of the land (I.E. reduce staffs hours to avoid minimum wage). It may be the right thing to do, the loophole may well be there because the lawgivers recognize it as the right thing. Alternatively the law may be evil, in which case the right thing to do may be to break it.

And a totally different tack, would be to look at what makes Christ and the Gospel look bad. Again sometimes we are called to be unpopular...etc, but also not called to be 'a Millstone'.

[ 15. October 2013, 22:40: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So...the problem is a lack of good jobs in the fields college graduates pursued. What is the clear Christian solution to a problem of a lack of well paying jobs in the fields folks want to pursue? I wish I knew what it was. I'd run for office if I knew even a purely secular solution to that problem. My suspicion is a real solution would involve policies that neither right nor left would like regardless if they were Christian.

Let me try some another example.

In Newfoundland the main industry was fishing. It worked. The Grand Banks was teaming with cod. The inshore fishery meant that people could fish and make a decent living. Then it was decided that factory ships should drag their many kilometre long nets through then ocean, and drag the bottom. Because it would be profitable. Lots of money. Most of it not to the people who lived there. Today, there is not much left. Fishing is dead. Destruction of families, destruction of communities. So now, as the joke goes, the second largest city in Newfoundland is Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Was it reasonable to allow large companies to swallow up the fish, make gobs of money and then leave?

--I think the difference in your thinking may be that I see major tides of economic and political decision making as pushing people around, and you harbour the idea that anyone can make it and are fully responsible for doing so. People say sometimes that everyone has equal opportunity and we should apply market forces cum social darwinism to society. Except that people hardly have equal opportunity and those who achieve high economic standing generally attribute skill to themselves in gaining their wealth, where luck and being in the right place at the right time have so much to do with it.

You see, if I'd been born 10 years earlier or later, I would have had no difficulty with employment on graduation. It remains to be seen what the passing of a decade might do for my kids. So perhaps I should have chosen to be born in a different decade, graduated in a different decade, and had children in a different decade. The people in my age cohort discuss this all the time, including the civil engineer, the physical therapists, teachers, nurses, psychologists, physicians. And it was Reagonomics that did it to us, in its unavoidable application to our dependent economy. We're still reeling from it and I have no idea how long or if it will be repaired. With the bottom line being that right wing economic policies have harmed the average person, and it has been in support of the greed of the right. How is it Christian to take from the poor and give to the rich?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

So, it goes from being about how society cares for the poor to how easy it is for the average man in society, namely you, to maintain an acceptably affluent lifestyle? Fair enough question to ask politicians. It just doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. From a Christian standpoint, if you have your daily bread and a place to lay your head, you have enough. From reading your posts, you sound like you have both and can afford luxuries the poor couldn't hope to afford. Nevertheless, you seem upset that the rich can afford to live even more luxuriously and believe they somehow prevented you from accumulating more wealth than you already have. Shouldn't you be happy that they prevented you from accumulating more wealth since it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? I may be wrong but that's what it seems like you are saying in your last paragraph.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

You're right. I should be conservative and self righteously Christian. But I am descended from people who came in time of war with nothing. My grandparents lost everything in the prior war, with prior generations picking the wrong sides as well in other conflicts. So we've been at it a while. Also because I lived in poverty for years that I understand it. I did luck out with some good decisions, comfort with financial risks, such that I'm not average at all in income or assets. It has been the attitudes of the long rich and old money that have me. They didn't earn it, and won't part with it unless forced. And stupid idiots like me actually thought the gospel as you quote was true re the rich and eyes of needles, but how to get the righteous right to do it is totally beyond me.

Can you tell me how to get the rich to give? To willingly give? I can't.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Subsistence wage means the lowest wage on which a worker can survive. So, paying a worker $20 a day wouldn't be paying a subsistence wage in most developed countries. Shelter is part of survival. Even the most modest of shelters come with a flush toilet in the US. I'll bet the same is true of the UK.

Absolutely. But $20 per day is a subsistence wage (in fact well above a subsistence wage) in many parts of Africa. And a flushing toilet would be considered a bonus rather than a necessity. Hence my point that it is difficult to apply a universal standard.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...For the record, I openly disagreed with him and argued Christians should follow the law of the land unless it violated divine or natural law

Well this typical left-winger agrees with you on that part. So we both agree that society has a role in determining what Christians should do then? Whether it is right to pay the minimum wage would depend on other factors (like what the minimum wage actually was in the country we are talking about and the situation of the workers etc.).

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Do employers who pay minimum wage exploit their workers?

Maybe sometimes they do and sometime they don't. My point was though that exploitation exists and is morally wrong for a Christian. Having determined that, I think one has to be very alert to the possibility of exploitation being present whenever one hears about workers on subsistence wages.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Can you tell me how to get the rich to give? To willingly give? I can't.

If they're Christian, you can do it by convincing them that Christianity does in fact demand that they do so.

If they're not Christian, then what grounds do you have for saying they should follow the teachings of Christianity concerning personal wealth?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You're right. I should be conservative and self righteously Christian. But I am descended from people who came in time of war with nothing. My grandparents lost everything in the prior war, with prior generations picking the wrong sides as well in other conflicts. So we've been at it a while. Also because I lived in poverty for years that I understand it. I did luck out with some good decisions, comfort with financial risks, such that I'm not average at all in income or assets. It has been the attitudes of the long rich and old money that have me. They didn't earn it, and won't part with it unless forced. And stupid idiots like me actually thought the gospel as you quote was true re the rich and eyes of needles, but how to get the righteous right to do it is totally beyond me.

Can you tell me how to get the rich to give? To willingly give? I can't.

OK...so it's just the old money rich who can't be Christians. The nouveau riche can be Christians because they at least earned it? Rich people usually give away a ton of money. Look at the university buildings, hospital wings, libraries, museums, and auditoriums named after them. They may not give as much as you think they should give but give they do.

What Martin said about getting the rich to freely give.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
Well this typical left-winger agrees with you on that part. So we both agree that society has a role in determining what Christians should do then? Whether it is right to pay the minimum wage would depend on other factors (like what the minimum wage actually was in the country we are talking about and the situation of the workers etc.).

Christians have an obligation to obey even the penal law provided it does not contradict divine or natural law. Laws passed by society do not become Christian just because Christians should obey them. Some of the laws might be good. Some might be bad. Others might be pointless. Christians should pay a minimum wage because that's the law of the land. I don't see any clear evidence for what a Christian wage would be. By Christian wage, I mean a wage that all Christian employers should pay or else they aren't Christian. I know you aren't arguing that right wing people can't be Christian but that is the question posed by the OP.

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
Maybe sometimes they do and sometime they don't. My point was though that exploitation exists and is morally wrong for a Christian. Having determined that, I think one has to be very alert to the possibility of exploitation being present whenever one hears about workers on subsistence wages.

Employers paying a minimum wage can't be responsible for why a person is willing to work for minimum wage. They just can't. An employer can't even ask those types of questions in a job interview.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I know you aren't arguing that right wing people can't be Christian but that is the question posed by the OP.

I didn't really consider it a serious topic. Although to be honest I did really think that once upon a time, but then had several humiliating revelations when I saw some right wing Christians in action that made me realise how wrong I was.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Employers paying a minimum wage can't be responsible for why a person is willing to work for minimum wage. They just can't.

I think they can be responsible for whether they exploit a given situation or not. If someone is desperate and being paid an unfair wage it is wrong to exploit the situation. Granted we may struggle to define unfair and to define desperate, but that doesn't absolve us of trying to make a judgement.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Employers paying a minimum wage can't be responsible for why a person is willing to work for minimum wage. They just can't. An employer can't even ask those types of questions in a job interview.

So the moral course of action is to assume that everyone is working to live, and pay accordingly. I'm proud to work for a Living Wage employer. That means, in practical terms that every person working in this office - including subcontractors and their employees - is earning at least the London Living Wage of £8.55 rather than the UK minimum wage of £6.31.

My firm doesn't need to know whether its employees "need" £8.55 an hour or could scrape by on £6.31. It is unarguable that an organisation in which the best paid people take home a 7-figure profit share can afford to pay more than the legal minimum to everyone.

How anyone begrudge their lowest earning employees an extra £2.24 an hour in order to increase their own 7-figure pay packet?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
How anyone begrudge their lowest earning employees an extra £2.24 an hour in order to increase their own 7-figure pay packet?

I imagine the thought process occurs in pretty much the same way as it does with those who begrudge increases to 7-figure pay packets in order to add £2.24 to their own. Namely "they should have less so that I can have more".

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Marvin:

quote:
I imagine the thought process occurs in pretty much the same way as it does with those who begrudge increases to 7-figure pay packets in order to add £2.24 to their own. Namely "they should have less so that I can have more".

Or in other words, "they should make do with last year's luxury yacht for a bit longer so I don't have to choose between buying food and heating the flat."

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

However you phrase it, it still boils down to "I want them to have less so that I can have more".

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

To claim it boils down to that is to regard inequality and justice as irrelevant. Perhaps they are to some but not to everyone.

[ 16. October 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
To claim it boils down to that is to regard inequality and justice as irrelevant. Perhaps they are to some but not to everyone.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
However you phrase it, it still boils down to "I want them to have less so that I can have more".

Erm no. The point is that those of us who choose to work here, rather than for the competition want to have *less* so that the lad serving the coffee can have *more*. Because we think that's fair. Because we think it makes for a nicer work place.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

[Overused]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Erm no. The point is that those of us who choose to work here, rather than for the competition want to have *less* so that the lad serving the coffee can have *more*. Because we think that's fair. Because we think it makes for a nicer work place.

Fine, they can take the extra out of your pay packets.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
To claim it boils down to that is to regard inequality and justice as irrelevant. Perhaps they are to some but not to everyone.

I definitely regard inequality as irrelevant. And "justice" has many more interpretations than just the one you favour when it comes to how much any given worker should be paid.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
To claim it boils down to that is to regard inequality and justice as irrelevant. Perhaps they are to some but not to everyone.
I definitely regard inequality as irrelevant. And "justice" has many more interpretations than just the one you favour when it comes to how much any given worker should be paid.

As far as we can be certain, God disagrees with you.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Perhaps. Or maybe He doesn't. Or maybe He doesn't even exist.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The Christian God, if he exists and is represented at all by church and/or the bible, does indeed disagree.

And society generally disagrees with you. I don't think any politician would be elected with a naked "we'll all get what we can". On the left we often describe the right as championing that view, but the truth is they do pay some attention - just a bit less than we do.

They certainly don't deny the importance of justice and equality on the campaign trail. And however duplicitous one might argue that is, the conclusion must be that they wouldn't get voted in if they did.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps. Or maybe He doesn't. Or maybe He doesn't even exist.

I think that for the purposes of the OP, it's probably a given that right-wing Christians believe He does indeed exist.

But thank you for playing anyway.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK...so it's just the old money rich who can't be Christians. The nouveau riche can be Christians because they at least earned it? Rich people usually give away a ton of money. Look at the university buildings, hospital wings, libraries, museums, and auditoriums named after them. They may not give as much as you think they should give but give they do.

What Martin said about getting the rich to freely give.

That would be an error of generalization, to reference new and old rich, that's merely my observation and a reason for initiating the thread. I find myself feeling that many have led rather sheltered lives and don't understand the wrong side of the tracks.

Having the rich freely give is the stuff of revolutions isn't it? or making them pay a fairer share of taxes. And the taxes on higher incomes and corporate profits have all fallen. Everywhere. I see this as anti-human and not Christian. So we disagree on Christianity and what parts of life it should enter into. I have thought all of it, all or none.

As for the freely giving, when the rich give by donation, we do see buildings, lots of them. But we don't have funding for basic programs within them. Here, they are constantly putting up yet another hospital wing, for mental health, for children, for breast cancer. But there's no staff. The buildings represent the most expensive way of delivering health services, many of which should be community based if cost effectiveness was the goal. And we already have other space in other hospitals that is vacant and unused. But a rich person gives to have a building with their name one, and the Health Authority accepts. While the tax dollars to staff it don't actually exist.

The low tax policy means that the wealthy and corporations provide more of the public policy and also decide how to spend monies that should be spent by the public as the public. We shown clearly that services offered publicly are more efficient and cheaper than those offered for profit privately, and they have a chance at actually doing what the public actually needs.

I think I need to ask: can Christianity own some basic social issues? I am articulating a series of things about social gospel here. Is Christianity against slavery? Racism, sexism, and other ways of stratifying society? Does Christianity have anything to say about basic nutrition for children, e.g., school lunches? Or head-start types of programs which maximize educational services to children of poverty and adverse social conditions? Should education be basic right at all? Should the market decide that some people need to go into prostitution? The costs of legal representation?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The Christian God, if he exists and is represented at all by church and/or the bible, does indeed disagree.

On equality, I'm not so sure. I don't remember "thou shalt not earn more than anyone else" being in any verses.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I seem to remember a parable about workers in a vineyard where the whole point is that "fairness" is about honouring your commitments and not about equality of pay rates.

True, that's intended as saying something about humans' relationship with God rather than about the ideal society.

But it certainly suggests that equality is not what Christianity is about.

Using your resources to help someone in need is a Christian act.

Equality for the sake of equality is not a Christian value. Advocating equality because you believe that is the best way to help those in need seems like the act of a Christian. although such a Christian may not know much about economics...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The Christian God, if he exists and is represented at all by church and/or the bible, does indeed disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
On equality, I'm not so sure. I don't remember "thou shalt not earn more than anyone else" being in any verses.

That's quite a stark definition of equality you're using.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[QB] I seem to remember a parable about workers in a vineyard where the whole point is that "fairness" is about honouring your commitments and not about equality of pay rates.

Well in that parable, the half point is that the 'undeserving' poor workers are paid equally to the 'deserving' poor worker. It's subverting left&right standards of fairness but not on the right side. (more particularly it's doing to each according to need, without the from each clause, I've seen some descriptions that make that more understandable-i.e. the late workers were always willing to work). [The talents one though...I do find difficult]
The other (very much reoccurring) point is that God like a rich man can do what he wants with his stuff. It doesn't seem to be even implicitly condemned (not just here but in many of the parables, you do have Lazerus, the barn builder and needle eye comments, but again they don't do something, that I can't quite describe)
[/quote]

quote:

True, that's intended as saying something about humans' relationship with God rather than about the ideal society.

Quite agree.

quote:

But it certainly suggests that equality is not what Christianity is about.

Like I said above, not sure this parable helps that case. But it's definitely not the purpose of Christianity. Supporting some forms of inequality however are against.

quote:

Using your resources to help someone in need is a Christian act.

Yep (and one I'm not great at), and using your resources to make someone be in need is an anti-christian act, and failure to use your resources to help someone debatable, but on the not-as-good christian side.

And currently even in the UK alone bbc.

(To tie in with the thread Big Society Compassionate Conservatism done right, could potentially be fine under that comments)

quote:

[Rest of post ignored as need to get to work]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
On equality, I'm not so sure. I don't remember "thou shalt not earn more than anyone else" being in any verses.
That's quite a stark definition of equality you're using.

It's the one in use on this thread. Or was all the bitching about "seven-figure salaries" not actually about people earning more than other people?

[ 17. October 2013, 10:16: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Not the definition I've been using, or one that anyone else I've seen use here- except you, and you are using it to caricature arguments for equality.
Speaking only for myself, I'd say that it was about a 'thick' equality of opportunity- opportunity that is more than, as RH Tawney memorably put it, a reluctant invitation to dinner issued in the certainty that it would not be taken up (or words to that effect).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'll try to hopefully clarify this for you, Marvin. Bitching about seven-figure salaries is not a function of the amount of money. It is a function of comparing the skill-set and experience of the recipient and the work involved against the size of the reward.

I have absolutely no problems with people earning different amounts of money for different jobs. I have no problems with people earning more money than someone else doing the same job, but better or holding more responsibilities.

I do have a problem with people not being able to earn enough to live on no matter how hard they work. I do have a problem with poor people having their pay cut while rich people have their pay increased, ostensibly to make both groups work harder. I have a problem with rich people making poor people poorer because the rich people don't think they're quite rich enough. I have a problem with rich people taking seven figure salaries and not taking responsibility for the fuck-ups that happen on their watch.

Inequality is a catch-all term, but the Bible uses the words 'fair' and 'just' instead. It's fair that if you work hard and trade well, you earn more. If you don't pay your workers a day's wage, or use incorrect weights and measures, you may earn more, but that is an unjust way of doing business.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

To contrast 7-figure salaries with subsistence pay is not the same as saying that pay should be identical.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

There will always be some people who earn more than others - partly through hours worked, partly through risk being taken, partly through the difficulty or riskiness of the work.

Those people with specialist skills that are in high demand will always be able to negotiate a premium for their labour.

So far, so fair.

What is manifestly unfair is that those who are paid the lowest amount are unable to afford a basic life as accepted by most people: and for that to be quantified it needs to be thrashed out just what we think is the acceptable minimum that a person in full-time work should be able to afford.

So, I'll stick my neck above the parapet:

rent for a modest 2 bedroom home so that, potentially, a person can live with at least one child [£100 pw]
sufficient money to be able to take a moderately priced 1 week holiday [£10 pw]
sufficient money to pay for replacement clothes and household items for the adult and to kit out a growing child [£40 pw - £17 from income and £23 from Child Benefit]
a wage that will cover paying council tax at a modest rate [£20 pw]
and a wage that allows for the earner to put 10% aside into a pension fund [£25 pw]
plus at least one week's money for Christmas [£8 pw]

That little lot adds up to exactly £180 per week.

On the national minimum wage of £6.31 per hour a 40 hour week will give the worker £252.40, out of which they will have to pay National Insurance of £12.53 and tax of £14.17, thus leaving a disposable income of £225.70.

So, once the basics above have been covered, the princely sum of £45.70 is left to cover

utilities - water, electricity & gas
telephone - I think most would agree a 'phone is a modern essential
food
travel to work by public transport

Anyone can see that the sums just don't add up.

Yes, the person concerned is likely to qualify for Working Tax Credits, but surely it would be better for them to have a higher wage, rather than being taxed and then getting money back? Quite apart from anything else, the cost of administering Tax Credits must be prohibitive.

Even if you took the person out of NI and Tax completely they still wouldn't have sufficient to live a decent life on.

Now, many small businesses will say that they cannot afford to pay the higher wage that is needed for people to reach a basic standard of living. The accounting head will say that if this is the case then their business is not in fact sustainable or truly solvent.

But another part of the brain says that maybe the time has come for the whole of the tax and benefit system to be overhauled and that businesses with a turnover that precludes them from paying a properly living wage to receive directly money from the government to make up the difference, rather than employees having to go through the Tax Credit system.

And those Labour politicians who spoke so long and loud about "joined-up government" in the late 1990s can perhaps explain why it is that the minimum wage, personal tax allowance and single person's pension are ALL below the amount required for a decent standard of living.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And those Labour politicians who spoke so long and loud about "joined-up government" in the late 1990s can perhaps explain why it is that the minimum wage, personal tax allowance and single person's pension are ALL below the amount required for a decent standard of living.

And perhaps all those politicians who said the minimum wage wasn't workable when Labour introduced it, would result in failing business and mass unemployment, could now perhaps join them in voting for a higher, more realistic minimum wage in the next parliament?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Actually, I think the fact the the present minimum wage is so manifestly too low is proof that what was said by some at the time of its introduction was true.

True, in some areas it raised minimum wages - but in many areas it has resulted in either wage stagnation or in lowering wages in certain sectors.

A friend who lives on the south coast has been working in an employment agency for the past 20 years and confirms that many admin posts in her area are paying the same now as they were in 1997 - and some are even paying less. As she said, as soon as the minimum wage came in many of her local employers reduced salaries as admin staff left and the net result has been that wages for some people haven't changed for the past 15+ years.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Everywhere. I see this as anti-human and not Christian.

That sentiment keeps getting repeated on this thread with little or no evidence.

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Racism, sexism, and other ways of stratifying society?

Racism is not Christian. Until recently, nobody made a big deal about skin color On the other hand, scripture and religion encourages discrimination base on religion.

Sexism is very Christian according to scripture and tradition. I don't think Christians should support sexist policies. Can't go any further than that with out venturing into Dead Horse territory but I'm not willing to say sexism makes one not a Christian.

A stratified society isn't contrary to Christian scripture or tradition either. At best, scripture and tradition calls for something along the lines of noblesse oblige which I believe is a right wing position. Nobody on this thread wants to say exactly how much stratification is allowed.

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Is Christianity against slavery?

Christianity is ambiguous. At best, you can argue the biblical writers saw slavery as a necessary evil but they didn't make abolition a priority. Jubilee calls for the slaves to be freed every 7 years or so. What about the other 6?

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Does Christianity have anything to say about basic nutrition for children, e.g., school lunches? Or head-start types of programs which maximize educational services to children of poverty and adverse social conditions?

Not really

Doesn't mean those things aren't good ideas. However, one can oppose government funding of school lunches and head start programs and still be a Christian. You could make a case that Christians have an obligation to see children are fed but that doesn't mean you have to favor government funding of school lunch programs. I see no support for Head Start funding being essential to Christianity.

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Should education be basic right at all?

I don't don't know about right. Scripture and tradition would appear to be against public funding of secular schools. Education was the responsibility of the temple and then the church.

quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Should the market decide that some people need to go into prostitution? The costs of legal representation?

Prostitution is not Christian and you could actually make a decent case from scripture for covering the costs of legal representation.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As she said, as soon as the minimum wage came in many of her local employers reduced salaries as admin staff left and the net result has been that wages for some people haven't changed for the past 15+ years.

I don't follow the logic at all. Why would salaries go down as admin staff left and why would the admin staff leave because of a minimum wage?

Aside from that logical difficulty, obviously a lot has happened in terms of economic downturn around the world. I don't think the current stagnation can be blamed on the minimum wage in our corner of it. I think it was the late 90s when the minimum wage came in and the down-turn was much later.

The fact that no-one currently earns below the minimum wage but many used to is a good thing.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why would salaries go down as admin staff left

Presumably their replacements were hired at minimum wage rather than whatever they had been getting paid.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Well in that parable, the half point is that the 'undeserving' poor workers are paid equally to the 'deserving' poor worker.

Again, you can also read it as an argument against equal pay for equal work or even the minimum wage. The only thing the owner is required to do is fulfill his contractual obligations towards those he hires. It's all prooftexting. The point of the parable was not to make a statement about the politics but the grace of God.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why would salaries go down as admin staff left

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Presumably their replacements were hired at minimum wage rather than whatever they had been getting paid.

Still doesn't compute for me. Are they leaving or being fired? If the former then the option of a lower wage for their replacements can't be the cause. If the latter that would be illegal to fire someone so as to re-advertise the post for a lower salary.

And in any case if a lower wage could be paid presumably it would have been before the minimum wage. A minimum wage doesn't abrogate the usual market force driving wages up for skilled employment. None of this makes much sense.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The point of the parable was not to make a statement about the politics but the grace of God.

Agreed. Getting labor-law out of it is like getting botanical insight from the mustard seed parable.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The point of the parable was not to make a statement about the politics but the grace of God.
Agreed. Getting labor-law out of it is like getting botanical insight from the mustard seed parable.

Concur

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Prostitution is not Christian and you could actually make a decent case from scripture for covering the costs of legal representation. [/QB]

I read this and agreed without thinking, but actually, (although I still agree with the conclusions) now I'm intrigued as the reasoning.
Mini-concordance doesn't give any obvious lines.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

mdijon

Before the minimum wage was brought in there was a range of salaries in most areas. And in those where some of the population commuted into London there were a few high-powered EAs who earned as much (or nearly as much) working outside London as they would have done in London.

What happened after the minimum wage was introduced was that a load of filing clerks, etc, got their wages bumped up - splendid.

But when the Chairman's long-term right-hand woman left (retired, wanted a change, whatever) the salary offered to a replacement was pitched much lower - partly so that overall wage bills could be reduced, especially in smaller companies trying to control costs.

It didn't take long for salaries for all admin staff in the area to be broadly equalised and this was done downwards.

Sure, you can perhaps find a much higher paying job - but how feasible or easy is that if it entails an expensive 2 hour each way commute?

In areas where there is a shortage of well-qualified staff then maybe things are different but, as my mate tells it, around where she is there is an over-supply of people and this keeps salaries down.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
mdijon

Before the minimum wage was brought in there was a range of salaries in most areas. And in those where some of the population commuted into London there were a few high-powered EAs who earned as much (or nearly as much) working outside London as they would have done in London.

What happened after the minimum wage was introduced was that a load of filing clerks, etc, got their wages bumped up - splendid.

But when the Chairman's long-term right-hand woman left (retired, wanted a change, whatever) the salary offered to a replacement was pitched much lower - partly so that overall wage bills could be reduced, especially in smaller companies trying to control costs.

It didn't take long for salaries for all admin staff in the area to be broadly equalised and this was done downwards.

At about the same time as the minimum wage was introduced, a lot of office automation arrived too that dispensed with a lot of routine clerical work. The desk bound parts of the EAs job have to some extent gone, and modern EAs are much more likely to be graduate management trainees, in their first few years getting a feel for the business and being ruthlessly weeded out if they don't shape up. There simply isn't the same need for the highly-experienced secretarial EA, although both parties, ie senior executives and secretarial EAs often like to pretend otherwise so you get horrible conflicts between the protege EA and the professional EA, sometimes with the CEO in the middle, unable to detect it, let alone do anything about it.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Prostitution is not Christian and you could actually make a decent case from scripture for covering the costs of legal representation.
I read this and agreed without thinking, but actually, (although I still agree with the conclusions) now I'm intrigued as the reasoning.
Mini-concordance doesn't give any obvious lines. [/QB]

Access to the courts and impartial judges was important to the prophets. Nowhere does it say legal representation should be covered. However, having a lawyer is essential to getting fair access to the courts.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
At about the same time as the minimum wage was introduced, a lot of office automation arrived too that dispensed with a lot of routine clerical work....

Sioni describes a number of other changes that happened at the same time. It may be that companies were trying to claw back money lost with the minimum wage, but in general if they could get away with paying less for a particular job, or do away with the need for it altogether, then I would expect that they would have eventually found a way to do that, minimum wage or no minimum wage.

Companies should generally be trying to be as lean and as profitable as possible in all weathers, not waiting for a minimum wage to prompt them to do it.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I have absolutely no problems with people earning different amounts of money for different jobs. I have no problems with people earning more money than someone else doing the same job, but better or holding more responsibilities.

I do have a problem with people not being able to earn enough to live on no matter how hard they work.

That's not a belief in equality, that's empathy with your fellow human beings. Which is an incomparably better thing with a much better claim to being Christian.

Just wondering - if lots of the slightly-left-leaning people don't actually have an ideological attachment to the concept of equality, but don't know what else to call their desire for action to help those who seem to be getting a raw deal from the system. And if lots of the slightly right-leaning people don't actually want to prevent the poor from getting affordable medical treatment, but don't know what label to put on their desire - for efficient and non-intrusive government that creates no misincentives and takes the barest minImum of a man's hard-earned wages - that's different from the words the extreme right-wingers use.

Then maybe there's more common ground than is apparent from the words being used. And a better vocabulary may help us find it.

With Apologies for horrible long sentence,

Russ

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... Until recently, nobody made a big deal about skin color ...

I really, really hope what you're trying to say is that until recently, nobody made a big deal about people being treated differently because of their skin colour.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... Until recently, nobody made a big deal about skin color ...
I really, really hope what you're trying to say is that until recently, nobody made a big deal about people being treated differently because of their skin colour.

The Romans in antiquity didn't differentiate people based on skin colour. Or so we're informed.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Quite probably they didn't. But does Beeswax Altar intend us to believe that apartheid, or the signs in boarding house windows 'No Blacks', never existed?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Beeswax intends you to believe what Beeswax actually wrote. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Which is 'Until recently, nobody made a big deal about skin color' Of course, if you define 'recently' as 'after the collapse of the Roman Empire', you are right, but otherwise not.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Read the sentence in context. I was talking about skin color in the ancient world. I'm not aware skin color was an issue before the slave trade. 400 years ago is relatively recent given the length of human history.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Read the sentence in context. I was talking about skin color in the ancient world. I'm not aware skin color was an issue before the slave trade.

Egyptians vs Nubians?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

no prophet:

quote:
The Romans in antiquity didn't differentiate people based on skin colour. Or so we're informed.

Quite right, they didn't. They were happy to enslave anyone, including large numbers of my own (Celtic) ancestors.

The big social division in the Roman Empire was between citizens and non-citizens.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

AIUI there are some correlations between caste in Hinduism and darkness of skin- is this correct? If so, how long has it been about for?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Read the sentence in context. I was talking about skin color in the ancient world. I'm not aware skin color was an issue before the slave trade. 400 years ago is relatively recent given the length of human history.

I don't know if they were simply projecting modern attitudes back, but I was lucky enough to see the National Theatre's Othello recently.

On their reading, the whole play is drenched in racism, and that was written in the early 1600s.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
AIUI there are some correlations between caste in Hinduism and darkness of skin- is this correct? If so, how long has it been about for?

AIUI when the Aryans, who were light-skinned, conquered much of India, they set up the caste system to preserve their own culture and ethnic purity. I don't think it was a matter of skin color; it was a matter of "other".

Moo

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0