The Greed Creed
by Stephen Foster
What is greed?
Normally, I would now furnish a dictionary definition; but is there a need in the case of greed? The meaning of greed is amorphous; not unlike that of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography—“I know it when I see it.”
In western culture, especially in America, there is a tension as to the question of whether greed is actually socially beneficial. The fictional cultural icon Gordon Gekko of Wall Street posited that “Greed, for lack of a better a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of man; and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A. Thank you very much.”
Is there truth in this statement? Perhaps a better question is, “Are there people who believe any of this is true?”
If it is true, what does it mean, what are the implications for society?
If it is not true, if greed is not good, what are society’s options?
Gekko’s speech, again, written for a fictional character in a film with an agenda—The Greed Creed—represents what SDAs are historically warned against: truth mixed with error.
This is what I mean: “greed for life, love, [and] knowledge” is not the same thing as the greed for money.
Money is inanimate currency used to exchange goods and services. Money is not evil. As a matter of fact, to the contrary, money, says Ecclesiastes 10:19, answers everything.
The problem is that the scriptural flip side is “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1Timothy 6:10). But why is the love of money—an inanimate currency facilitating exchanges of goods and services—so different than that for life, or knowledge (for example), that its love is “the root of all evil?”
Is there a connection between the love of money being at the root of all kinds of evil and the scriptural idea that it is nearly impossible for a rich man to get to heaven?
The answer would appear to be obvious. The character challenges presented by great wealth, or the pursuit of it, seem overwhelming. These challenges are related to love of self, in juxtaposition to love of “neighbor.”
In my view, this reality is manifested in social policies whereby selfishness is fostered and perpetuated and takes precedence over sharing. In fact, sharing in such cases is possibly considered as subversive a concept in western culture as any idea can be.
Societal sharing is ‘bad’ because of the perception, or the reality, that, because of natural human greed, sharing must be—or inevitably will be—compulsory on some level. That level, of course, is government taxation. When tax revenues are spent on housing, or food, or medical assistance for human beings, it is viewed as evil and redistributive (compulsory sharing), because it is stealing from those who have—because they are virtuous—and giving to those who don’t have—because they are somehow less virtuous. Christians have been known to believe this.
From a scriptural standpoint the conundrum related to wealth is that of the character assumptions/suppositions that are frequently associated with great wealth—wealth erroneously being conflated with prosperity.
By this I mean that wealth and prosperity are not necessarily the same things. Personally, I like the way Wikipedia explains this: “Prosperity is the state of flourishing, thriving, good fortune and/or successful social status. Prosperity often encompasses wealth but includes other factors which are independent of wealth to varying degrees, such as happiness and health.”
This notion of prosperity, or the state of flourishing, is more in line with that of having or receiving God’s favor. Scripture suggests that prosperity—again not necessarily, or only, monetary wealth—will overtake us if our priorities are in proper order.
One of those priorities is arguably voluntary charity and benevolence toward those in need. If charity voluntarily occurred at the level it should among those who profess to believe in the God of the Bible it would likely be more effective than government programs could ever think about being. “If” however can be a big word.
It appears easy for most of us to adopt an attitude, vocalized or not, of moral superiority to those who appear less prosperous than we happen to perceive ourselves. This, in my view, is why many Judeo-Christians equate taxation for purposes of providing assistance to certain individuals with theft.
Another reason may be: we love money—which is the root of our problems.
Stephen I would also be interested to know what you think about the rise of Prosperity Gospel (usually mixed with Deliverance Ministries) within Evangelicalism, and the inroads this philosophy has made into Adventism? Further to what you are saying, has there been a paradigm shift away from a wider biblical understanding of Prosperity, now instead replaced with an equation with the accumulation of money as a sign of God's favour, and is this in inversion of the Gospel message?
Stephen,
It is indeed a seductive ‘teaching’ that is represented by what I believe you refer to as the “Prosperity Gospel.”
This is so because it only sane to desire prosperity in its true meaning. However it is natural to desire wealth. The notion of prosperity appeals to rationality. The notion of wealth appeals to more. What that ‘more’ represents is often crucial.
One of the most ambiguous texts in the NT: "The love of money is the root of all evil."
How long would the church be able function if there was not a love of money? Each church treasurer carefully handles the money each Sabbath with the budget in his mind; usually never sufficient to pay the bills. The church prospers as its faithful tithe-paying members prosper. All churches love to have prosperous members. Does wealth equal greed? Or, are there multiple reasons: the higher education level, the greater the income; being born into an affluent family is the quickest and surest way to become prosperous. As Obama remarked recently:
No one becomes successful on his own: many have contributed to that success but there is also the impression that wealth was achieved by greed.
The wealth of the Vatican and Mormon church is well known and for the latter, the prosperity of its members is evidence of their religiosity.
I Tim. 6:10, ambiguous? Maybe for those who find ambiguities wherever the plain, unvarnished truth is unpalatable. It's pretty obvious that the point of the text is that for those whose main priority in life is making money, evil will be the sure result.
Faithfull stewardship of God's resources can hardly be classed with the "love" of money. Money is like anything else–means to an end. When it becomes an end in itself it leads to evil.
Abraham was a wealthy man; but there is no indication that his wealth was acquired because of greed.
It is hard to imagine how it might be possible to agree more, Jean. 1 Timothy 6:10 is about as unambiguous as a passage can be, one would think; unless there is a question as to what is meant by money (I’m kidding).
In all seriousness though, “…the root of all evil” could hardly be more clear.
It actually says 'a root of all evil'. The Bible nowhere identifies money as the casue of all evil. The Bible is not saying the desire for money is the worst sin, just that it is one that leads to many other evils. Greed, pride, selfishness, and many other things also can lead to great evil. Wealth is not condemned. Love of wealth that leads to not loving God and your neighbour is. Like most verses, I am sure it was written more for our own contemplation than as a yardstick against which to measure others.
Jean,
How is it possible to identify one's wealth as coming from greed? If Abraham's wealth was not acquired because of greed, how can you be so certain? How can you judge today whether a wealthy individual acquired his wealth through greed? What is your metric so the rest of us will be able to correctly identify "lovers of money"?
God said, of Abraham, that he obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, andmy laws. Gen.26:5. Doesn't sound like a greedy person to me. The burden of proof is upon you, Elaine. The Bible is not shy about pointing out the faults of man, but, in spite of Abraham's failures, greed is not once mentioned as being one of his faults.
Stephen,
Once again you have used negative insinuations and twisted logic to impune the integrity of those who disagree with your views on the role of government in charity. That is not God's method of persuasion, but Satan's. It does not educate or cause people to search for truth. It does not turn the attention of anyone to God. The results are argument, the growth of insinuations and the further spreading of misconceptions and utter falsehoods. That someone such as you, who claims to be a follower of God and holds a high position of leadership in our church, would engage in and promote such debate and deception instead of pointing people to God's instructions for how we are to live and minister in His power is utterly shameful.
Stephen,
This does sound like a political statement you are making. I hope it is not based on the idea that the right/Rep/conservative (or whatever you want to call them) are somehow greedy because they have a different approach to governance. Thus, the left/Dem/liberal are more compassionate because they tend to think in terms of redistribution.
I am an independent because both of these sides tend to have false ideas of human nature. They are also quite inconsistent in their ideology. One side thinks that having killer guns (assault weapons) available to the public is freedom, yet they that take a strong stand against abortion under any circumstances. And the other side thinks that given enough money there will be no more poverty, apparently because they believe human nature is so good they will make the right choices without guidance and never be greedy.
In an ideal world we would have equality, free health care, no abortions, no guns, etc. But it isn't. If given the chance, a majority would be greedy under any system. One side is not more righteous than the other. The sooner we understand that and listen, not to parties, but to individuals, we can make more rational choices.
Greed is not limited to the rich, and because one is rich does not make them selfish and lacking in compassion. We can be thankful for those who have consistenly shared their wealth. Maybe we need a president who has prospered with no need of more wealth for himself.
Romney is attacked for his wealth but no mention made of the Kennedys!
Our current president and his family are admirable (as a person he is my favorite in recent times); I especially like Michelle and what she has been doing in the fight against childhood obesity. I believe the president is idealistic and wants the best for the country. And I think his goals can best be met through education and getting to the root of our problems (such as in healthcare) rather than more laws. Polarization started before his election, and he promised to bring us together, but it hasn't happened and I'm disappointed.
Ella,
Thank you for that perspective. There is plenty of room for discussion of topics to find solutions and persuade voters. However, if we as believers in God truly endorse obedience to His law, we must be intolerant when we see falsehoods being spread.
What has really angered me in the presidential campaigns of the last two decades is the amount of blatant hatred and distortion that is used to make one candidate appear less desirable than the other when the first, if evaluated on his own merits, would be rejected as a nefarious and devious liar. I was a newspaper reporter for eight years and what I observed about some of the candidates I met showed they were quite different from their public persona. Some of the greatest liars, cheats and narcissists I have encountered were public officials, including some who were running for president and one who was his part's nominee for president.
Fortunately, some of the candidates were the most upstanding and trustworthy people you could ever meet. As we say here in the South, they were "the kind of man you'd want your daughter to marry."
Probably the most common characteristic of the undesirable candidates was their ability to turn a phrase and accuse their opponenets of the most unpopular offenses and character flaws without making a direct accusation. They were masters of the art of insinuation. Instead of saying their opponent actually did something, they would say their opponent may have done it. The results were the same: leading their hearers to believe the opponent had actually committed the offense. The difference between the insinuation and an outright lie was so small that there was no discernible difference. Stephen has followed their example in exact fashion with his closing statement where he declared "Another reason may be: we love money—which is the root of our problems." While he does not directly state that those with whom he disagrees all love their money too much to be charitable, he leaves little room for any other conclusion. Thus his intent is to lead people to a negative conclusion without offering any evidence other than his insinuation. If that isn't lying, I haven't met it.
Ella,
If your larger or basic point is that all humans can be greedy, and that this includes poor people who love money and are greedy for welfare, then I think I understand and agree. Human nature is indeed common to humans.
The fact that there are numerous poor people who have made and make poor (moral?) choices and are greedy for welfare does not alter the fact that there are those who are not poor who have also made and do make poor (moral?) choices and are greedy for gain.
Nor does it change the reality that loving money is the root of evil.
Stephen,
That the love of money is not at question. It is a clear statement in scripture. What is not clear is what you really mean when you talk about greed. What evidence do you have other than political rhetoric to support your claim of widespread greed among those who disagree with your concept of social justice. What is your definition of "social justice" that you defend? What scriptural basis can you provide for government using taxes to effect "social justice"? How does being prosperous (or rich) prove that a person is driven by a love for money, as you directly charged? You've opened your mouth and made charges. It's time to back-up your charges with evidence. How can we know when you have started telling us the truth?
Stephen,
I was not targetting either the poor or the rich, but only expressing my opinion that they can both be greedy; whereas we tend to paint the poor as victims only. I tend to believe that our government increased dependance with some of their actions such as Johnsson causing families to break up by giving more money to single parents. Keep in mind there are more poor whites than blacks.
My husband used to work with "poor" people for a number of years. He discovered many took advantage of policies to get more (even told by social workers to cheat and lie), whereas the really poor had to be searched out.
On the other side we have completely greedy, powerful business men who do the same things–cheat and lie. Only occasionally do we hear about the generous ones. The same goes for the high-paid athletes, actors, and other pop celebrities. Hollywood types tend to be socialistic–I think re-distribution should begin with them! they are true hypocrits.
It would be an enormous task if God came down to Congress and tried to get them to compromise. Any president must deal with Congress and regardless of his ideas, if the majority has previously decided that their one goal is to make this president a one-time president, that's quite an impasse. Which is what awaits us the end of the year when we "go off the cliff."
"Money is the root of all evil, and yet it is such a useful root that we cannot get on without it any more than we can without potatoes."
Louisa May Alcott
Or, to quote Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof": If riches be a curse may I be smitten and never recover!
That was her interpretation. As you know, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not money as it is needed to sustain life today and the church has a love of money and loves the extra tithe that money brings into its coffers.
Stephen,
When are you going to detail for us the Biblical basis on which you endorse using government taxation to pay for charitable actions by the government? For spreading false insinuations about those who disagree with you without giving evidence supporting your charge? Instead of just painting conservatives with the broad brush of political rhetoric hoping some of the falsehoods will stick on them, how about telling us what you really believe and why? People need a Biblical basis on which to build their social concepts. All you've given us is political rhetoric. We need a shovel to dig through what you're spreading so we can uncover the truth.
I am glad to live in a country that does not use a religious document as its foundation, and that constitutionally forbids the establishment of any religion. So why, I ask, would anyone need to provide to you, William, or anyone else, a "Biblical basis" for the government to engage in activities that benefit citizens in need?
Joe,
I think you've got it backward. Stephen defends government policies that support "social justice" when many of those policies are direct attacks on religion and destroying religious freedom.
By the way, have you ever found a clear definition of "social justice" where we can know what it actually means?
How can you so glibly attack "social justice" when you don't have any clue to its meaning?
My sister was the "minister of social justice" for her Catholic parrish. That meant that she oversaw
administration of the charitable programs of the church to address the needs of individuals
and families.
Under our constitution there cannot be reference to a biblical basis for any of its
activities. Why should there be? There is a constitutional obligation to separate church and state that is being encroached up already. Are you suggesting we continue to pursue that further? Charity has never been limited to religion but a human compassion that may or may not be associated with religion.
Elaine,
There shoud be no constitutional question here. The preamble clearly states that one of the purposes is to "promote the general welfare," NOT "provide" it. So public welfare is unconstitutional on it's face.
If you read the instructions God gave to the Israelites you will find numerous instructions for how they were to practice charity. Stephen Foster ignores that model and defends government provision of welfare because it supports his concepts of "social justice" which, in practice, means "anything I want to advocate claiming it will rectify some social ill or evil, but without having to provide any proof it exists."
Some Christians have told me that sharing with the poor is more for the good and character development of themselves (the donors) than for bringing actual benefits to the poor.
Too much Christian philanthropy is still dispensed (it would seem) with a view to purchasing divine favor for the donor and amassing wealth in heaven and a positive reputation on earth. The best inducement to share with the poor is compassion for their needs and a desire to see them lifted back up to a better and more comfortable station in life. I see no direct difference between supporting legislation that provides for the needs of the poor, or actually dispensing aid personally. Perhaps we should do both. The government, for all its limitations at least in theory possesses greater resources to reach more people, more completely, more efficiently.
Some Christians have also suggested that when government dispenses aid, churches do not get the public relations advantage of having helped in the community, one-on-one. There remains in Christianity a strongly selfish motivation for "doing good," despite much talk about disinterested benevolence. Fighting to be cast in the role of benefactor seems more along the lines of the teachings of Machiavelli than of Jesus.
How does one communicate to a brother who has said what William has said?
William’s is wrath is vehement and I have contemplated ignoring him, but I am reminded of the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction who infamously declared “I will not be ignored…” So let’s try a soft answer in the form of some soft questions.
1. Did you read “If charity voluntarily occurred at the level it should among those who profess to believe in the God of the Bible it would likely be more effective than government programs could ever think about being”?
2. Do you agree that the level of voluntary charitable activity among professed Christians and Jews is, and has been, woefully insufficient to the scale of the problem?
3. Do you agree that being “rich” or monetarily wealthy is not necessarily the same thing as Biblical prosperity and/or favor?
4. Do you agree that the love of money—a good working definition of greed—is the root, or if you prefer a root, of all evil? (The word “all” sufficing as far as I’m concerned.)
5. Did you realize that the Constitution grants taxing authority to the Congress; and that the U.S. is not a theocracy?
6. Did you realize that I never used the term social justice, nor did I refer to it as a concept?
7. Do you understand that I am a layman and do not “hold a high position of leadership in our church”?
Stephen,
Now we're getting closer to real points of discussion. Still, your questions are laced with political terms. Let's try to cut through to the specifics, point by point.
1. I make no suggestion that faith-based charity would be larger in monetary measurement than Government programs. Such measurements would be irrelevant because the charity would be delivered primarily on a voluntary basis and person-to-person. There would be no massive payroll to track or payouts to recipients to add-up on an accountant's balance sheet. Faith-based charities typically deliver more benefit per dollar than public assistance programs by a difference of at least 20:1.
2. I completely agree that faith-based charities are inadequate to the task. Many churches no longer have charities because the government has largely taken over the role and public payouts are larger. This contrast is expanded by government measurements of the "poverty level" and concepts where "poverty" is not a situation of physical need but a comparison between your household and an estimated "average" household in your area and if you have fewer things than "average." Do you have only one, five year-old car instead of two with an average age of three years? You are potentially "in poverty." Do you have less than two televisions in your home, no cell phone and no internet service? In a growing number of states those are established points used to define that you are "in poverty." Your ability to get to work and feed your family no longer are the primary measures.
3. "Rich" is a nebulous concept used to promote envy and violate the tenth commandment. You don't go to work for a poor person because they don't have the money to pay you. It is the "rich" who employ others. Taxing the rich is a self-defeating concept because it immediately destroys jobs and pushes people into poverty.
4. There is a difference between the obsessive love of money and merely having more money than someone else because you have the skills to create more wealth. The basis of your argument here is the idea that the government owns everything and has the power to create prosperity. But the government still must collect tax revenue from the people, so it is wage-earning workers who create the wealth that the government takes.
5. Tax authority is not the issue. It is the abuse of tax authority to increasingly burden those who are productive and pay taxes to create massive, money-wasting programs in the name of "helping" the poor while doing little or nothing to actually improve anyone's life and in many cases making it worse. Some years back I was laid off and unemployed for three years. In that time we got by on my wife's limited income from a home-based business while I went to graduate school. We went on public assistance to put food on the table and provide a minimal living for our children. What I quickly discovered was that the very government rules designed to "help" me get out of poverty actually imposed numerous limits that actually made it harder to get out of poverty.
6. You may not have used "social justice" in your latest posting, but the concepts are infused through all of your discussions and inseparable from it.
7. Granted.
Some may find it interesting to do a wikipedia search on Australia's Social Welfare System. It is obviously vastly different from the USA's. We certainly don't consider it "theft" for the Government to use tax money in support of others. We do have a term "dole bludgers" to describe those who take advantage of the system!
As Edwin points out, there are good reasons for concern about aid agencies, churches and the like re community aid, help etc. My personal opinion is that there is probably just as much, if not more waste, theft, and misuse of money in those systems as in many government ones. There is certainly more "trumpet blowing", self agrandizement, and pride polishing.
Chris, I was thinking the exact same thing! I really have trouble understanding the American mindset. It seems to be so individualistic and rights-based, of a 'me, me, me' culture, rather than realising we are a small part of a wider body. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty that Australia has wrong with it as well, but America usually leads the way.
I know to America it seems Christian and all, but to me much of their national attitude seems completely un-Christian. When I read the story of the Good Samaritan, and realise that my neighbour includes the most marginalised in my society, I am happy to pay my taxes so people don't literally drop dead for lack of health care or food. When I read the Noahide Covenant, I realise that we are not merely to do these things as individuals, but should strive to build socieities that ensure justice and prosperity for all.
Traditional conservatism as formulated by Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli, which I adhere to, is all about organic society, about respect for institutions, about social cohesion, and about the obligations of those who are better off to look out for those less fortunate. American conservatism seems to be the opposite – it is nothing but agressive and ruthless classicial liberalism.
Happy to let you have your country – I am more than happy with mine. I doubt many in the rest of the Developed World would want it.
cb25,
"Dole bludgers?" I love Aussie descriptives and how they contrast with often bland American descriptives!
The root issue is not using taxation to finance government assistance programs, but government programs being allowed to grow at fantastic rates, impose rules that increase poverty and make it more difficult to get out of poverty, failure of the programs to deliver the results promised by politicians, etc. What has really gotten Americans upset in the last few years has been the explosion in the national debt, the vast majority of which is the direct result of expanding social programs, combined with the general unpopluarity of ObamaCare. The latter males huge promises to spend still larger sums of money, expand the bureaucracy and exlode the debt while placing limits on care. It was largely justified on the claims that it would not increase the debt and that a claimed 30-40 million people without health insurance coverage would be covered. Each day brings new revelations about how the taxes it imposes will destroy jobs, drive up the cost of health care instead of controlling it, force millions who now have employer-provided health insurance ont government-provided coverage plans, and explode the debt instead of decreasing it.
I don't think you would find much argument with American social policy and the use of taxation to fund it if it were administered in an honest and effective way. We have a term from the old American West, "selling Snake Oil", to describe when someone gives you a huge sales pitch and makes all kinds of promises to get you to buy something that is overpriced and delivers none of the benefits you heard described. Americans increasingly feel like the Obama administration sold them a bunch of Snake Oil and now we want a refund.
The issue of taxation becoming theft is when tax increases reduce your ability to provide for your basic needs and are justified for the purpose of "helping the poor" when the government has a record of abysmal failure in doing that. Since the late 1960s the US Government has spent an estimate $14 TRILLION dollars trying to eliminate poverty in America. Today the poverty rate is higher than when such programs were first started and are currently at their highest levels in history.
Perhaps a stupid question, but as to your massive debt, perhaps the US should stop invading countries? Instead of paying healthcare and wealthfare to Iraqis and Afghanis, who keep killing your people, perhaps you could then spend the money on your own citizens?
I recall reading some years ago Stigliz's Trillion Dollar War, about the massive costs of Iraq War II. At the time, a Trillion Dollars of debt seemed absolutely massive – now it doesn't seem that big at all.
William makes an good point, "The root issue is not using taxation to finance government assistance programs, but government programs being allowed to grow at fantastic rates, impose rules that increase poverty and make it more difficult to get out of poverty." For example, in the US now we are passing a law that changes the condition of documenting that you are looking for work, to also allow "documentation of reading motivational and employment related self-enhancement material" for staying on the dole. I mean, Really?
It is not hard to understand, based on your non-responsive answers to my questions, how people give up trying to communicate.
You have opinions. So does everyone. Your opinions on this subject are deeply held. However the foundations of these opinions apparently do not stand up to simple scrutiny, because you didn’t answer five questions, William. What you did was state your views, which is your prerogative; but you said some awfully harsh things about this blog, and should in fairness answer fair questions. (When one accuses of impugning motives—in satanic fashion—one should be willing and able to simply ANSWER very straightforward questions.)
I had asked you did you read my statement that “IF charity voluntarily occurred at the level it should among those who profess to believe in the God of the Bible it would likely be more effective than government programs could ever think about being.” Your numbered response indicates that you never understood that I agree that charity is comparatively more cost effective.
You did answer my second question, but offered an excuse that effectively takes individual church/synagogue members off the hook by blaming the inherent bureaucracy in government for everything. Faith-motivated individuals and faith-based charitable institutions are seldom discouraged by the U.S. federal government. Tax incentives (and more) encourage charitable activity.
You didn’t try to answer my third question at all, but simply sought to explain the social utility of rich people. What’s that got to do with anything? You’ve merely regurgitated a partisan talking point.
When Elaine Nelson and Joe Erwin pointed out that we live in a constitutional republic you dismissed their points as irrelevant; yet you decry what the government does with tax revenues (relative to promoting the general welfare); opining that it is unconstitutional. Constitutional taxing authority is the issue William.
You didn’t answer my straightforward fourth question whereas a “Yes” or “No” would suffice. Of course you didn’t answer this question because you didn’t answer the third question.
Your response to the fifth question is again, strictly political opinion and personal anecdote; but didn’t answer the question at all.
As for number 6, your attempt at erecting a straw man was simply exposed. I stand by my words, not yours. If and when I ever use the term social justice, I will explain what I mean; which would only be fair.
In this blog I clearly stated that money is quite necessary and very useful. That which Edwin Schisow, Chris Barrett and Stephen Ferguson have said resonates with me (except that I’m partial to the U.S.).
As long as the government does not prohibit us from doing that which God would have us do, or mandate that we do what God has told us not to do, we should be cool.
My apology, Mr. Schwisow, for the name misspelling; but thanks for the insightful comment.
For the record, I should amend my statement about being “cool,” and limit that to our context of social spending policy.
"Schwisow" is not an Australian name, however you spell it, and many of my friends spell it many different ways, so consider yourself by all means my friend! No, I have not ventured to visit Australia, but I did spend a great deal of my youth as a missionary's kid in South America, so perhaps my views are "a little bit closer to the Australians" than most. I have often felt that Adventist Today is very much in tune, from its inception, with the spirit of Australian Adventism. Individualistic, but not antisocial; questing for the new, but conscious of the value of our roots; irreverent, but not sacrilegious; probing but not abrasive.
You have the wrong Stephen. Stephen Ferguson is the Australian Stephen. But thank you for saying nice things about Australia, and it is never too late to come for a visit. You are even likely to meet some old friends, as we have quite large Latin American congregations here.
In an earlier comment Stephen Foster included my name in the august company of notable Australians, and it appeared that he might find my views vaguely Australian, so I wanted him (and others) to train their GPSs on where I was coming from, as a writer and commenter. Yes, I have good things to say about Australians; I am a student and fan of cultures, should we say, but my interest is more than abstract, and I say that with warm regards to Australia.
Stephen,
Your responses indicate how far apart we are. Let's clarify a couple points.
First, you use carefully-worded statements designed to lead your readers to a stereotyped conclusion that is based falsehoods without directly stating it. Your insinuation was that being affluent meant a person was greedy, something for which you provided absolutely no supporting evidence but which is widely used in political demagoguery to attack conservatives. If you're going to charge greed, say so and give us your evidence. If you won't do that, you are promoting belief in lies. The Bible declares that Satan is the "father of lies." In the Garden of Eden, Satan implied to Eve that God was withholding knowledge that would be beneficial to her and by doing that treating her unfairly. How have your statements not the same? When are you going to stop promoting falsehoods?
Second, government authority to tax is not the issue. Neither is helping those who cannot help themselves. It is the web of lies liberals have woven to support ever-increasing tax rates that are claimed will help the poor when the majority of those funds are directed to the benefit of their wealthy cronies. (The Obama administration has been more of this in three years than the previous presidents back to Reagan, combined. Source: Wall Street Journal.) It is the every-changing use of terms that cannot be defined to avoid facing reality and admitting that their policies have failed to deliver the results that were promised. (Since the start of the "war on poverty" under President Johnson, the US has spent more than $14 trillion on anti-poverty efforts, yet the percentage of the population in poverty remains essentially unchanged. Source: Office of Management and Budget.) It is claiming that differences in earning capability are proof of "income inequality" where the force of law is required to take from those who earn more and given to those who earn less so everyone can have the same standard of living and be "equal." That is not charity, it is the legal description of theft. Do it without the fore of law and you'll go to jail.
When are you going to discover God's plan for charity and start promoting it?
William,
The careful use of language is purposeful in order that I might convey precisely what I mean to say, as opposed to a stereotype of my position.
However, since you seem bent on stereotyping my position—or have a stereotyped perception of my position, you are left to impugn motives and accuse me of deceit.
You have falsely accused me of insinuating that affluence and greed are necessarily synonymous and then state that I fail to provide evidence for something I never said/implied/insinuated.
Meanwhile you have failed to answer a few simple questions; the primary one perhaps being “Do you believe that the love of money (greed) is the root of all evil?” That’s a “Yes” or “No.”
" When are you going to stop promoting falsehoods?"
When will you stop beating your wife?
Have you developed a metric for determining who is greedy and someone who has been blessed with abundance, as was Abraham? Please give us your metric so we can all quickly assess this important knowledge.
Didn't know you had so much to get out of your head while we were at Oakwood. Your blog has generated quite a few responses in a short time. I skimmed your comments and felt impressed to add the following: Your comments made me think "Capitalism" and human nature go together. The Wall Street films exemplify the state of greedy intemperance that has plagued man since the Fall and Lucificer since his failed coup attempt (Rev. 12:7-9; ISa. 14). How ironic that John Calvin's and the Puritan ethic is analyzed by Weber as the root of capitalism–work, production, etc. However, capitalism unchecked by the Spirit of God leads to greed, exploitaion, and political and religious rhetoric of "taking back America" and "prosperity Gospel profiteers." God is not against desire, but when we want at hurt of others (i.e., immigrants, non-USA, minorities) He promises His wrath and terrible consequences (James 4 & 5). President Obama has been called a socialist because greedy self-ineterest parties want it all for themselves and not to spread it for the many. Greed is a temptation that invaded every strata of social life, even church life. Your blog reminds us to pray for God's evaluation and honest conclusions and recommendation for transformation because His scrutiny is thorough and final. In closing, let's pray we are greedy for God–Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled.
I've never yet heard of a pastor, local or union conference who discouraged wealthy individuals from joining the church; in fact they are courted and welcomed. How can the church identify whether this individual obtained wealth from greed? It should not be assumed.
There are many faithful SDA physicians, top earners, who give much $$ and time to the church. Have they become rich through greed, or was it hard work and diligence, struggle to receive education–many long years before being financially rewarded?
Joseph of Armithea was wealthy, and offered his tomb to Jesus. Sadly, some wealthy SDA contributors have been treated very unfairly through their dealing with the church; and SDA leaders have also been greedy to fill their pockets using their clerical garb and position.
Capitalism operates in every nation in the world: It's their version of the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, rules." Where would there be an incentive to work and study hard if no one could ever rise above the state of poverty in which he may have been born? That's always been the American Dream and why our ancestors came to these shores: where there was opportunity to escape a "caste system" in their native country and become anything they wanted here in America.
But there are some things about other nations we would do well to emulate: taking care of our own before fighting endless wars and building schools, roads, and infrastructure in those countries while neglicting education and infrastructure here. There is the beginning of a backlash from all political sides.
"I wish that among all things thou mayst prosper and be in good health."
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
How do these two declarations logically co-exist?
It is because, as Stephen points out, prospering and loving money are different things. One might have modest means, yet be incredibly prosperous. Another (Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, for example) might be loaded with cash, yet not at all prosperous or healthy.
It is the love of money — greed for the sake of it (mere accumulation) that sparks all types of bad behaviors: war, theft, strife, hate, insensitivity, envy, notions of superiority, and more.
Greed and capitalism are not necessarily synonomous (although a socialist might argue that the connection between profit and exploitation cannot be broken). However, capitalism is too often positioned as the rationale for greed.
The instinct of many (of us) to reflexively protect that position, without examination, is a large part of the problem — and an indicator or our priorities.
Preston,
If you want to see real greed, read Neil Barofsky's new book "Bailout." He was the TARP special investigator general. Don't read the book unless you want to get really, really angry. What he describes uncovering was an incestuous relationship between Wall Street banks and the US Government where the former captured the latter and pushed it into taking the largest financial actions in US history to bail them out. The irony was that before becoming the TARP IG, Barofsky had been a prosecutor in the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. While there he prosecuted financial crimes and sent people to prison for doing the very things that the major banks were doing, except the banks were able to get the government to shovel money into their coffers to cover those losses. Will any of them face prosecution? It is more likely pigs will learn to fly.
I doubt if you spent all day on a sidewalk in L.A. asking individual's feeling about TARP and the "incestuous relationship between Wall Street banks and the U.S. government," you might want to plug your ears if you don't like the remarks that would be made.
It is in other situations that do not fall neatly on one side or the other. If there were no capitalists, most people would not be employed–those not employed by government. Henry Ford was a capitalist; Andrew Carnegie was a capitalist, Steve Jobs was a capitalist. They amassed large fortunes, but gave jobs to thousands who were able to live more comfortably than before, and provided them with products that also improved lives.
Elaine,
Excellent observations! Capitalism does good things for people. So the claims about it being bad that we have been hearing recently leave me puzzled. What sort of thinking ignores the jobs created, the inventions, the improving standard of living, the goods and services and other thigns capitalism produces? It all comes back to a philosophy where someone sets themselves up as judge and declares that because I have more than someone else, they are going to take from me and give to them so we can be equal.
People of that viewpoint also ignore that every nation that has embraced capitalism has prospered but every one that has adopted the economic model they advocate has collapsed. Forty years ago China was a closed society in universal poverty. Today it is vastly different and an economic powerhouse. Why? They embraced capitalism. Yes, they still have a communist government. But that government operates quite differently than it did four decades ago.
What puzzles me is, given that weight of historic evidence about socialism, why would anyone think society will be made better by destroying capitalism?
If indeed you are truly puzzled William, perhaps this will help (but then again…)
Capitalism and socialism, and any other man-devised economic system or governmental systems, are flawed.
Capitalism is in no way Christian, or Christianity, or Christianity-light, or Christianity-like; at all. This can also be said of socialism.
The question is do you believe this?
Christians must live within the system their governments have chosen. Few are totally capitalist or socialist as there are benefits to citizens under each system.
It is rather odd that the U.S. sees socialism as evil as communism; usually from ignorance of simply accepting the labels that the talking heads confer.
The Health care system in Britan is superior to the U.S. in many ways, and also in Israel which Romney commented on very recently: there, the costs are far less than the U.S. but certainly equal and everyone is insured with non-profit competing companies and Israel has a slightly higher longevity rate.
Unlike in the U.S. where healthcare and banking are privatized, but in banking, the losses are socialized. Why is it good to build schools and roads in Afghanistan while here in the U.S. both are crumbling from lack of government funds? Governments are not evil, nor is private business; both are necessary but wars are not, yet there are many in congress today who are advocating cuts in education and healthcare while calling for even larger defense.
Elaine,
If you think the British health care system is better than what we have in the US, move there and see for yourself. Need a hip replacement? If you're over age 70, you are more likely to die than live to get it because the wait is over three years. Need a heart valve replaced? According to the British National Health Care System statistice, you have at least an 80% chance of dying before you get it. Need cardiac stents? Just about as bad.
The British government has discovered the awful truth that they simply cannot afford their health care system. The delivery of care services has become so bureaucratic, paper-intense and costly that the British government is actively working to deconstruct it and make it more like what we have in the US.
Preston,
I have no illusions about different economic models being flawed. After all, we're human. It is just that capitalism, despite being imperfect, has created far more prosperity for far more people than any other economic model.
China is doing pretty well, but that has to do with a blend of capitalism with central socialistic planning.
As we know from the Word, "God helps those who help themselves." Amen! Again, it is written "to those who have, more will be given, and to those who have not, even that which they have will be taken from them." Indeed! For the poor have obviously not heeded the Word of the Living God, and therefore their condemnation hangs over their heads by their own hand. Those who are unwilling to work, unwilling to make the effort to take care of their own, unwilling to stop having children that they cannot themselves afford, etc. There will be gnashing of teeth! Amen!
Those who are wealthy, who have more than they need, are simply enjoying the abundance of living according to the Holy Word. who obey His commands. The poor will say "they love money, and are therefore evil," but that's not the case. The fact is, they're enjoying the FRUITS of their obedience to the Lord their God. Therefore, we can use prosperity as a litmus test by which to discern those who love the Lord, and those who do NOT!! Was Jesus one of those who begged, or were his disciples? Of course not, because they were willing to WORK for their daily reward. I wish I could say the same for the poor among us today, but I cannot.
Yours in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who Was, and Is, and IS to Come, Amen!!!
Tim
Thank you, Tim, for illustrating the point.
There are, as we said, Christians who actually hold to this condescendingly Puritanical attitude.
This is why, for some, helping the poor by way of taxation and social welfare represents thievery, for all practical purposes. There are Christians who perceive that, by and large, the wealthy are wealthy because of their character; and the poor are poor because of their lack of same.
When I was in the Army, I recall conversations in which people would actually assert, with a straight face, that Jesus was a "wealthy man," and they weren't referencing "spiritual wealth." They actually believed that monetary wealth was exemplary of spiritual well-being.
It made me sick to my stomach, and I usually had to terminate the conversation before I hulked out.
🙂
Pleasure to illustrate it here.
Just for the record I wanted to note that (maybe for the first time), I agree with Tim here. If they thought Jesus was wealthy, they were reading a different "bible" than the one Tim and I read. The Pharisees and Sadducees were plagued by the same false notion.
Tim,
Someone claimed that Jesus was a "wealthy man?" I've heard a lot of claims made about Jesus but can't say I've heard that one before.
"God helps those who help themselves" is in the same chapter as "Cleaniliness is next to Godliness." 😉
You are right Elaine. That "verse" is found in Cliche 1:3. 🙂
Seriously, it is an example of how capitalism has been equated with righteousness, God's will and way, and the primary channel for Him to deliver tangible rewards.
Human ideologies and God's way are different.
Preston,
"Cliche 1:3?" I love it!!!
Let's not make the mistake of equating capitalism with righteousness. You are very correct that human ideologies and God's ways are different. I would have a hard time proving your statement more clearly than by comparing the teachings of liberal-socialism with the Bible. That should come as no surprise given the fundamental L-S concepts. First and foremost is that there is no God, so there is no divine law to be obeyed. Second is that all religion must be subverted, co-opted, opposed and overcome to the point that it becomes powerless in society and replaced by L-S.
Like you, I do not link capitalism and righteousness. That would be taking things to a level of claims as false as those made by L-S. I simply submit the evidence from history showing that, where the principles of capitalism are followed, that nation enjoys great prosperity. Unfortunately, the understanding of capitalism that most Americans have is our current economic system, which started out as capitalism but over the last 70 years has come under the thumb of controlling leaders and laws restricting the practice of the basic principles. So what we have today cannot legitimately be described as capitalism. I'm really not sure what to call it.
William,
I think your assessment is correct: The U.S. is neither capitalist or socialist, but maybe a hybrid; which would be a good model if neither totally prevailed. There are many advantages of living in a capitalist system, but it has the prospects of benefiting the already wealthy to the disadvantage of the middle class and lower–which may be what we observe today with the largest disparity of any nation and the largest ever in U.S. history.
Socialism does offer benefits in giving all citizens healthcare at a lesser cost than is presently operational, and lower educational costs which are almost a given in such nations as The Netherlands, Denmark which benefit capitalist businessess by furnishing skilled employees. Both healthcare and education in the U.S. are a disgrace when compared with most all first world nations. We have a first rate educational system that others recognizing by their young people coming here, especially for graduate studies.
It is also a disgrace that many states, California is one, that spend more on prisons than on education: an upside down priority because better education lowers incarcerations.
There are few more dramatic examples of the race to economic oblivion than California where the state's economic philosophy seems to have been "If it's good, outlaw it. If it's productive, tax it into oblivion. If it's politically correct, fund it without regard to the cost."
Well, it’s good to see you acknowledge that capitalism is at least flawed, William.
Your assessment of it—as comparatively more beneficial/effective than any other man-made economic system—is just that, your assessment; nothing more.
Your criteria for that assessment—that its principles has invariably produced national prosperity—is an opinion that has been vigorously challenged by other opinions as to what are its principles and how they should best be implemented and what are its limitations.
In other words, your assessment is not the gospel and capitalism is not theological.
This is exactly why you equating social welfare (and/or liberalism) with evil is so incongruent at best; and frankly somewhat shrill.
There may be atheists and Christians who are communists, socialists, capitalists, plutocrats, or fascists. Theology should not be confused with economics.
As long as the government does not prohibit us from doing what God tells us to do, or mandate that we do what God tells us not to do, it would seem that we should render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s; and to God that which is His.
Stephen,
It is time to show the evidence behind your claims. Show me your list of nations where liberal-socialism has created prosperity. We need evidence, not more political rhetoric.
Capitalism is delivering prosperity to every nation that has adopted it. Look at the nations of eastern Europe thta used to be part of the old Soviet Union. In 1990 Albania was one of the poorest nations on earth but today is one of the most prosperous. Ditto for Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Slovakia, Romania, etc. Contrast that with Russia. They experienced a capitalist revolution after the fall of communism and began to experience greater prosperity than at any time in their nation's history. (They actually have several billionaires on the Forbes list of the world's richest people.) But the return of autocratic government under Vladimir Putin has put their economy into reverse.
Capitalism is producing an economic revolution in India. Several nations in Africa that have adopted Capitalism are enjoying while nations. The former Rhodesia used to be a model of prosperity and development surrounded by undeveloped nations. Their return to totalitarian socialism has pushed them back into poverty. South Korea was a developing nation on the front end of an economic revolution when I was there as a Student Missionary in 1975. Today it is an industrial powerhouse enabled by Capitalism
Canada turned to Socialism under prime minister Elliot Trudeau and their economy nearly collapsed as a result. But today the average Canadian is more prosperous than the average American because they rejected Socialism and adopted Capitalism. No, not matching any ideal theoretical model, but in dramatic retreat from Socialism.
Australia and New Zealand have prospered greatly under Capitalism, but in recent years their national economies have stumbled and even begun retreating as their governments have become more socialist and exercised stronger efforts to "manage" or "control" their economies.
I was hoping that by now some doses of reality might help you see the blatant lies on which the political rhetoric you echo is based. Apparently I was wrong.
Where there are capitalist nations there is also socialism: Most of the so-called "capitalist" nations also have socialized medicine and more liberal educational systems, which some may call socialism.
China is fast become a capitalist nation, but it surely is not ideal with its still controlling government. Most successful governments mix and merge different systems. America is capitalist, but has many socialist programs.
Elaine,
Yes, the US has many social programs and there are few, if any, examples of "pure" capitalism. That doesn't change the basic fact that national prosperity is realized in direct proportion to their amount of capitalism and national decline in proportion to your level of liberal-socialism.
If you want to see what growing socialism can do to a national economy, look at France where they are unable to retain their young graduates from university and trade schools because they lose so much of their paychecks in taxes to pay for social programs. Those workers have been going to other countries because of higher wages and lower taxes. Until the current economic downturn hit Europe, the number one place those workers were going was England, which has many social programs but a tax rate more than one-third less than France. This loss of producing taxpayers is bringing France to an economic breaking point where they can no longer print money fast enough to pay for everything.
But Britain also has many socialized programs; Germany and the northern countries, also. The Scandanvian nations have not been hit with the problems of their more southern neighbors and they have a very socialist system. It is difficult to make blanket statements because the local culture may be more accepting of one system than another: note the great difficulty of the attempt to universalize healthcare in the U.S. compared to all other first world nations that sees the U.S. as very backward in that respect.
Elaine,
Once again, you're grabbing headlines and claims without testing to see if they are accurate. I could explain the differences, but our past exchanges make me doubtful you would understand what I was telling you. To put it in plain terms, you need to take everything you see in the news media with not just a grain of salt, but a pound or two.
I suspect other countries may have a better medical system because they are much smaller than the US. It's not so much about "socialized" medicine as it is about a broken system. We needed to work on fixing the system before making major changes. Now we will have an overwhelming number of people coming to get medical care for anything and everything and the sickest getting poorer care from a bad system.
Our system is so inferior because of federal laws that demand anyone showing up at the ER must be cared for; much is for preventive care for the uninsured. The ACA will bring many more into the insured pool, equalizing costs and pay for a minimum of preventive care that will avoid expensive care later on. When people are unable to pay to see the doctor, they put it off in order to pay rent, buy food, etc., and not until something major occurs do they seek care and then we all pay for it.
We will now see what Romney's new VP pick explains about his new Medicare system–I predict it will throw Florida to Obama as that state has the highest number of seniors now drawing Medicare as well as the age group of highest voters.
William,
You are not listening; and the proof of this is that you insist on hearing what I have not said while refusing to address what have said.
Why should I attempt to offer evidence for claims that I have not made.
The point is NOT that liberal-socialism or conservative-capitalism, or any variation or gradation of either, create prosperity or don’t create prosperity. There certainly is a political case to be made for either, which you are making; but that is not the issue. The point is that they are each man-made, flawed, and have absolutely nothing to do with God or theology or religion.
You have insisted, however, on making a conservative case for your preferred economic model. This is your prerogative because it is your opinion; but it is not germane.
I’ll reiterate for sake of emphasis, the economic philosophy that appeals to you is no more of God than is socialism. Maybe putting it in those terms will drive home the point in this regard.
Of course the larger point is that greed is, and/or is the result of, the love of money; and the love of money is the root of evil. The ancillary point is that as long the government does not prohibit us from doing that which God has told us to do, or mandate that we do that which God has told us not to do, then we have no issue.
Stephen,
You stated that there was no connection between political-economic issues and God, theology or religion. That is exactly the disconnect that Liberal-Socialism seeks to create so they can of subvert, control and destroy all faith in God. That is Satan's objective in the Great Controversy.
Jesus declared that we are either with him or against him. Our salvation depends on us letting Him be the complete master of our lives and to teach us His ways. Those ways include His instructions for how we are to practice charity. His ways make it clear when government is actively working against God. So your postings present us with a connundrum where we have someone who claims to be a follower of God advocating openly for what is assaulting anything and everything to do with God. How are we to resolve this connundrum? What evidence can you give us on which to base belief that you are a follower of God?
Will someone get between us on this?!?!
(I will assume that the moderators, whoever they are, have not seen your post; since you are without doubt in violation. I will respond simply for the benefit of those reading this—“for the record.”)
I stand by my statement that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between capitalism, socialism, or any other man-made economic system (or –ism) and God, theology, or religion.
If you have hopelessly confused economic conservatism, capitalism (or whatever your preferred –ism is) with Christianity, then you have been deluded. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it certainly appears that you have; and it certainly appears that you are.
God’s preferred method of charity is not to be confused with what Caesar does.
As long as Caesar does not prohibit us from doing what God tells us we should do, nor mandate that we do what God tells us that we should not do, we have no problem.
Is this something with which you disagree?
Moderator?
What evidence can you give us on which to base belief that you are a follower of God?
Ohhhhh the irony. Somebody who has faith in a creature for whom there is no evidence demanding evidence of faith from somebody else.
Lord have mercy, I almost spat out my coffee.
But that aside:
Stephen, unfortunately, I find myself siding with William on this one, as he makes a great point. As we've clearly established here and as everyone already knows, the Creator of the universe is a conservative American capitalist who votes Republican and donates regularly to the NRA. What Jesus gave us is essentially a blueprint for human politics, which America, despite the hordes of liberals, socialists, homosexuals and "scientists" who are trying to burn the place to the ground, has followed dutifully and piously since its founding — why do you think America has enjoyed unique success in the world?
To deny that there is a connection between human political-economic issues and the Master of the Universe who created all estimated 80 billion galaxies and 600 sextillion stars (that's a 6 followed by twenty-one zeros) is to, in essence, deny Jesus himself, who died to bring us the system we have today. You could say that your denial is a "spiritual terror attack" on President Jesus Christ, if you think about it. Now I'm not accusing you of being a traitor or anything, but that should make you think long and hard about where you stand on this issue.
How long will you speak out against His gift of laissez-faire capitalism that He gave at Calvary? How long will you align yourself with Satan by claiming that "freely giving to those in need" is somehow a "Christian" tenet?
I will keep you in my prayers.
Are you professing to be the teacher of U.S. government? What are your qualifications for assuming such a position? Neither of us has access to secret information that is not available to all. The difference is all in one's interpretation. Such an assumption would infer that all U.S. citizens think exactly alike; that there are not two distinct parties, and that they fight every few years to gain the majority in Congress and elect the president.
I read as widely as possible on these questions and am far more inclined to listen to those well known commentators who I've learned to trust–but no one has all the right views. I read four daily newspapers; four weekly news magazines, but not limited to those.
I do not simply "grab the headlines" but read much more deeply of many news magazines with different perspectives. That is a very condescencing and patronizing assumption that you could "explain the differences." What are you reading?
Elaine,
If I have offended you for downgrading your reading, I offer my apologies. Few people read even the amount you listed.
This issue is too large and too complex to respond properly in the space we have available.
My question is if what you know the prejudice of the editorial board that determines what stories get written, how they get written and if they allow contrary information to be presented. Some of those editorial boards are unashamed in their confessions of such prejudice and their advocacy for liberal causes. Some of the most unashamed in doing that are the LA Times, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, and USA Today. Not that such is anything new because the stories about reporters being told by editors to write what was politically correct or what supported the views of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst are the stuff of legend. Many a reporter lost his job for telling the truth instead of writing it the way he was told. Few journalists today know how to ask penetrating questions or have the courage to ask for evidence supporting what they are told.
My unremitting criticism of liberal-socialism comes from having studied the works of many of their advocates since the 1840s and comparing their teachings/claims to scripture. I have seen few more dramatic contrasts between opposites. The objective of liberal-socialism is clear and simple: gain absolute and total control society by force while eliminating all faith in God because that is the greatest power preventing them from achieving their objective.
William,
I do agree that news reporting today is more like pablum. There are no more like Mike Wallace who did not fail to go after the jugular when an interviewee was beating around the bush. I love to think of how he would have interviewed Romney!
Today, reporters don't "dig" for the news and in order to keep their jobs they avoid anything their editors or publishers will find too "hot to handle." There are a few: Mother Jones and the Huffington Post, Slate, that reveal more than most any publication. Even the comic reporters, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert combine satire but the irony in most politicians today, and they skewer all sides.
The coming elections are revealing more about the American psyche in the choices it will make in November. At least, there are distinct differences in the positions taken in the economy which is the most important, IMO.
So, you have indeed been deluded William. If you have equated (modern) economic liberalism with Satanism, then you must invest its economic counterpart (conservatism) with Christ and Christianity.
My man, someone has totally brainwashed you.
You have been “taught” that your political/economic philosophy adversaries are emissaries of the enemy of our souls. Whatever you have “studied” that has left you with this conclusion is pure propaganda.
Here is the question: do you believe that the love of money is the root of all evil?
Sory I don't even understand the debate. The American version of conservatism is not even 'conservative' (according to the traditional Burkean model) but agressive classical liberalism. Perhaps look at the world outside of the US, and not just Glenn Beck off Fox News! I agree it is simply insane to claim one's political 'ism' is 'from God' and someone else's 'ism' is from Satan.
I have also read widely, and have a degree in political science (amongst other subjects).
Stephen,
I believe what scripture says. Jesus declared that whoever is not with him is against him. Since you advocate for the policies that are part of the liberal-socialist drive toward their dream of a utopian society and the achievement of that dream requires the absolute extermination of all religion and faith in God, how can you be doing anything but working against God?
I've ready the works of Marx, Alinsky and a host of other liberal-socialist advocates. Apparently you have not.
That's not an answer – that's just a slogan.
I am actually a conservative, not a 'liberal-socialist' as you claim. However, I am a 'traditonal' Burkean and Disraeli type – I suggest you look them up. Traditional British conservatism is quite different from American conservatism, which arguably isn't conservatism at all but agressive liberalism.
Traditional conservatism believes in respect for tradition and institutions of society (e.g. I was an officer in the Army, and obviously support the Church), believe in incremental reform over revolution, and that classlessness is a utopian fanatsy. Traditional conservatism is actually a reaction against other 'isms.'
However, traditional conservatives do not necessarily accept Reganomics and Thatcherism, which are not conservative at all but classically liberal. Traditional conservatives believe that because there will always be classes, the upper classes have a moral responsibility to look after the poor.
You might be interested to know that traditional conservatives such as PM Benjamin Disraeli in the UK introduced some of that country's first social welfare laws for the poor. He realised that in order to protect the upper classes against a social revolution, the upper classes need to look after the poor.
"My unremitting criticism of liberal-socialism comes from having studied the works of many of their advocates since the 1840s and comparing their teachings/claims to scripture. I have seen few more dramatic contrasts between opposites. The objective of liberal-socialism is clear and simple: gain absolute and total control society by force while eliminating all faith in God because that is the greatest power preventing them from achieving their objective."
What rubbish – perhaps only in America? What do you even mean by 'liberal-socialism'? I suspect you are using those terms in a colloquial sense and not in a technical political science sense. There is a huge difference between communist societies (which are arguably neither liberal or socialist) and social democratic parties.
How can you read the story of the Good Samaritan, or the Early Church in Acts, and have such cold-hearted views. Would you rather people starve to death or die of preventable disease, all because of your fear of Big Bad Government? I honestly don't even understand your mindset?
This sounds nice, and offers imaginative imagery; yet any way you cut it, love of money is the root of evil. (An inconvenient truth is never less true.)
Really? Any way we cut it, the love of money is the root of evil?
It's instances like this one where you guys can strive all you'd like to rationalize the more bizarre passages of the Bible, but it's never going to make any sense.
Can somebody explain to me how evil (which is a really weak term, frankly, that very few intellectuals would ever actually use, but then there are very few actual intellectuals here, so let's just run with it) like rape, for instance, has anything at all to do with the love of money?
I look forward to your amusing response and thank you in advance.
The love of money simply represents/defines greed. Greed is not good; it is at the root of all kinds of evil.
How amusing was that response my friend?
Your post takes rationalization to an extreme; but, let’s imagine, for sake of discussion, that Paul meant “money” can (also) represent anything we may want it to represent. Would that not also actually include money?
Young’s Literal Translation of 1 Timothy 6: 9-12 is and those wishing to be rich, do fall into temptation and a snare, and many desires, foolish and hurtful, that sink men into ruin and destruction, for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows; and thou, O man of God, these things flee, and pursue righteousness, piety, faith, love, endurance, meekness; be striving the good strife of the faith, be laying hold on the life age-during, to which also thou wast called, and didst profess the right profession before many witnesses.
We will allow someone else to perhaps comment on accepting Social Security as sinful.
Money doesn't exist. It is a legal fiction as a means of exchange.
Of course accepting Social Security is not sinful – what rubbish to suggest otherwise.
You Americans…
Stephen,
You are evading the question. How can you be a follower of God when you are openly aligning yourself with those whose objective is the destruction of all religion and the extermination of faith in God? Just answer the question.
William,
Who is in your sights today as working toward the destruction of religion? Is there always a bogey-man out there somewhere behind the scenes plotting such schemes?
If accepting Social Security and Medicare is sinful, I'm the worst of sinners and will continue to be! Social security is NOT a give-away program as we who are recipients have paid for it with years of work. True, some have paid more than others, but I cannot object as even the maximum benefits would barely maintain life today.
Few realize what life was life before FDR instituted the most acceptable plan ever invented for those grandparents among us who worked hard all their lives and found themselves without sufficient means to maintain life or health. Medicare, brought by LBJ is one of the best medical plans ever and I doubt anyone in the U.S. today would forefeit his rights for either plan–introduced by two Democratic presidents. (It's astonishing that these were Democratic plans and as usual, the Repubs were against them, but find a Repub who would like to do away with them and you will find a one-term congressman.
What an astonishingly brittle and typological rationale William offers for his lack of love and generosity! If I were an innocent observer reading this conversation, I would be repelled by such an attitude. Of course, I am not an innocent bystander, but I find the perspective he offers all the more repugnant. Who would want to belong to the "Church of Holiness and Hate" that such attitudes seek to advance? How can someone so obnoxious in attitude claim to be on the side of God?
It is really important to understand that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" do not mean the same thing in the US that they do in much of the rest of the world, and those are not the only terms that differ. Let decency and fairness and due consideration rule! And please do not let anyone convince you that hatefulness and intolerance are "Christian values."
Joe,
I asked a simple and direct question. The responses thus far have been evasion, diversion and silence. What is so hard about giving a direct answer to a direct question?
William,
When you accuse me of evading a question it is like the pot calling the kettle black. How truly hilarious?
Your question, brother, assumes that your premise is not ludicrous; which it is not.
Modern economic liberalism is no more or less about “the destruction of all religion and the extermination of faith in God” than is economic conservatism (or other –isms).
Since I have never beaten my wife, giving your question the dignity of a response wouldn’t make a lot of sense.
Frankly, you may feel free to judge me any way you want to William. Christians are admonished not to do this.
Now, would you answer the simple question—whether you believe that the love of money is the root of all evil? I know that you’ve acknowledged that the Bible’s position is clear on this; and in another place you have acknowledged that you believe what scripture has to say. But do you believe that the love of money is the root of all evil; just say either “Yes” or “No.”
(So, now you have repeatedly personally attacked someone with whom you disagree—with impunity.)
(So, now you have repeatedly personally attacked someone with whom you disagree—with impunity.)
Of course he has, Stephen. Didn't you see the thread about homosexuality, in which he was able to do the same? 🙂 Some people don't need to be moderated. Ever.
The reason for that impunity is the fact that he has the Lord on his side. As it is written, "if He is for us, who can be against us?" Amen! Therefore repent, Stephen, from your liberal-socialist ways and recognize that the Lord God, who created the entire universe and everything in it, is a venture capitalist.
How long will you freely hand out that which He has entrusted to you to invest and grow?
Stephen,
Why are you so unwilling to give a direct answer to a plainly-stated question?
Despite your position William—that liberalism and/or socialism is anti-Christ, ipso facto conservatism and/or capitalism is Christian—being obviously wrong on many levels; you are sufficiently intelligent to read the English language, so you are (or should be) fully aware that I believe that your “simple question” is predicated on a totally erroneous and bogus premise.
You have—with impunity on this thread from the ‘moderator’—repeatedly called me a liar, and an emissary of the devil; and have also asked me to provide evidence for statements I have never made and positions that I do not hold; and are now whining that I have not provided any evidence to your satisfaction (as if this is somehow important) that I am a Christian (follower of Christ).
The irony of your question is rich. What is also ironic is that when the subject of eschatology is discussed, you routinely want us to change the subject; yet you invoke The Great Controversy when greed is attacked/defined as “love of money.” (Is this a cautionary tale for others?)
Let’s make a deal, after you answer my simple yes/no question with a “Yes”/”No” I will answer your question to me. Do you believe that the love of money is the root of all evil?
Stephen,
I have answered your question before. I believe what the Bible says. Now, to refresh my question: Jesus declared that whoever is not with him is against him. Since you advocate for the policies that are part of the liberal-socialist drive toward their dream of a utopian society and the achievement of that dream requires the absolute extermination of all religion and faith in God, how can you be doing anything but working against God?
William again – you might be referring to full blown athiest Communism, but that is hardly the stance of Social Democrat parties in the world. With respect, I don't think you even know what the term 'liberal-socialist' technically means.
As for your claim about 'believing what the Bible says', I have just re-read all your posts quickly, and I can't seem to see you quoting any Bible texts at all. You just seem to make rhetorical (and in my mind rather Orwellian) slogans about utopianism, extermination of faith, Bushism 'for us or against us' and then personal attacks against Stephen Foster.
Even your statement attributed to Jesus is utterly Orwellian because it is all backwards. Jesus did not make an exclusivist statement that whoever is not with him is against him – He said the reverse in Luk 9:50, making an inclusive statement of tolerance to others:
All true Mr. Ferguson.
I haven’t seen a “Yes” or “No” to my question. My question is not (at all) whether William generally believes what the Bible says. My question quite simply, once again, is whether William believes that the love of money is the root of all evil.
Please see Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23.
The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:10). That is a simple fact. The blatant falsehood is the charge you made that people who oppose raising an already oppressive burden of taxation that is justified on the basis of helping the poor are somehow greedy and love their money more than God.
The only difference between the "full blown athiest communism" you referred to is the severity with which liberal socialist philosophies are enforced. Both the rulers of the old Soviet Union who murdered millions because they were "enemies of the state" and the current occupant of the White House base their philosophies on the same book, "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Joseph Engels. Central to the liberal-socialist plan for establishing their utopian dream is the utter and total eradication of all faith in God from society. The foundation of liberal-socialism is opposition to God. There is no difference between that and Satan's objective in the Great Controversy. So anyone who supports the objectives of liberal-socialism is, whether they realize it or not, working against God.
So I ask you again, to give us some evidence to help us believe your advocations are not working against God.
The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:10). That is a simple fact.
The Bible says it, sure, but that doesn't mean it's a "simple fact." Unless you're crazy, of course. Otherwise, perhaps you can explain how the "sin" of my homosexuality is related to the love of money? If it's not — and it clearly isn't — does that mean my homosexuality isn't a sin after all, since there's no love of money involved?
With respect to your charge against Stephen, I find it very curious. You make some impressive sweeping assertions — that those in favor of social programs also somehow therefore support the implementation of fundamentalist Marxism, that Stephen willfully advocates for such a thing, et al… and that, perhaps most amusingly, that President Obama wants to eradicate religious faith and establish some "utopian dream."
But that's not what I find most curious, William. What I find most curious is your haughty judgment of one of your own. Let's turn to His Word and see what we find about this. Please open your Bible and follow along at this time.
Luke 6:37 says: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned."
Again, Luke 6:41-42 says: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
The Lord says in Matthew 7, verses 1 and 2: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Further, I see a very curious parallel between your bizarre demand for "proof" from Stephen and the demands for proof from Jesus of his divinity. Jesus was asked repeatedly to prove himself, all the way up to the very moment of His death on the cross ("If you are God, save yourself and me.").
So while you ask the following of Stephen:
So I ask you again, to give us some evidence to help us believe your advocations are not working against God.
I ask the following of you:
Give us some evidence to help us believe your advocations are not working against God, o' faithful one. You seem to know Him better than anybody else here, so I've no doubt you'll be able help us out here. Thanks in advance and have a really great Sabbath.
Oh, and I hate to interpret the Bible for you, since you know it better than anyone, but.. 1 Timothy 6:10, if you move your mouse cursor over the link, actually says the following:
"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
Note that this differs from your use of the definite article "the" and the explicit qualifier "all." If atoday.org has that wrong, perhaps you can shoot an email to the administrative staff?
All you have to do William is say “Yes (I believe that the love of money is the root of all evil)” or “No (I do not believe that the love of money is the root of all evil);” it’s that simple.
We all know without a doubt that it is a simple fact that the Bible indeed says that the love of money is the root of all evil. That is not my question to you.
My simple, plain question is do you believe that the love of money is the root of all evil?
You are deeply invested in the erroneous idea that everyone who is not an economic conservative is out to eradicate faith in God.
You are an Adventist who invokes The Great Controversy narrative but arbitrarily conflates it with temporal economics wherein your only logical conclusion is western (American) economic conservative capitalism represents God’s (secular) side of The Controversy.
Your culture has totally indoctrinated you to believe that modern economic and/or social liberals are actually godless communists in the making. Marx and/or Engels were atheists and all economic liberals and/or socialists are atheistic Marxists, whether they (currently) acknowledge it or not.
You believe that whoever is not with you ideologically is against God, because economic conservatism and laissez faire capitalism are not against God; therefore they are with/for God.
Thus if you are not a true economic conservative capitalist you are against God—and must provide evidence to the contrary.
(As an Adventist, if you are truly interested in how Adventists view The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, I would suggest reading the book The Great Controversy.)
Perhaps a key to unlocking your mindset is found in the evident difficulty you are encountering with the challenge of answering one question with a one word answer: do you believe that the love of money is the root of all evil?
Stephen,
You remind me of the line from an old pop song that declares, "There is none so blind as he who will not see." Open your eyes and read FOR THE THIRD TIME. Scripture makes a clear statement that the love of money is the root of all evil. I believe the Bible, so I believe that statement is true. What I do not believe are the lies you have embraced to justify taking away what God has given me based on the claim that the government will do noble things that it does not.
The problem in this discussion is that liberals like you are so in love with my money that you have blinded yourself to God's teachings about personal property and charity. To borrow a Biblical description, you have abandoned the teachings of God and gone "whorring after other gods" who are proven liars. Every nation that has followed the basic principles you are advocating has collapsed or is rapidly approaching it. None has lasted even a single century after the adoption of the concepts you advocate.
What I fear I am without hope of ever seeing from your pen is any description of real charity and your involvement with it. I think this may be because you have never seen charity practiced according to God's model so you have been attracted by claims with noble objectives. We don't live far apart. I want to invite you to come and experience real charity that actually improves lives and is done totally without government involvement. God has always provided the resources we need, often from a person (myself included) reaching into their pocket at that moment to give more than they had planned because they saw the need and God motivated them to help. Each time has been a special blessing for both the giver and the recipient.
You remind me of the line from an old pop song that declares, "There is none so blind as he who will not see." Open your eyes and read FOR THE THIRD TIME. Scripture makes a clear statement that the love of money is the root of all evil. I believe the Bible, so I believe that statement is true.
Hi William! I hope you're having a really great Sabbath Day.
I posted this earlier but figure you may not accidentally not seen it, so I want to bring it to your attention again. If you notice, you'll see that 1 Timothy 6:10 actually says the following here:
"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
This seems to differ plainly and substantively from "the root of all evil." Is the translation that atoday.org is using wrong? I didn't think Biblical translations could be wrong, since it's the word of God and all, so I'm understandably a little confused here. You seem adamant that your translation is the correct one. How did you determine this?
Can you help me open my eyes like yours and understand this discrepancy?
Whether translations can be "wrong" they are not all exactly alike. Why should they be? Only if you can read the original manuscripts in the original Greek and understand how the words were used in there context. Translations differ: some are more readable; others are more exact; and some like the beauty of the KJV. There is not enough difference (except in a few very critical prophetic interpretation), to be bothersome.
Tim,
Different translations sometimes express things in ways that expand our understanding or challenge us to consider aspects we have not considered. "All manner of evils" does that. Thanks for sharing it.
Tim,
Part Two. The issue is not the precision of the translation but the way Stephen Foster has twisted the verse into a broad condemnation of anyone who disagrees with his political viewpoint. Such broad stereotyping strains credibility. That he would persist in making such a charge without knowing the lives and practices of the individuals against whom he directs the charge makes him a liar and removes all credibility from his claims and arguments.
Timo,
I am making an effort to engage/interact with you, but you have to simplify your communication/writing style for me; sorry.
I can pick up on a few things—if I re-read numerous times—but other things are never at all clear.
It appeared as if you were saying that accepting government entitlements was somehow sinful. If I misunderstood you, please forgive me. (As you know, Social Security is a huge entitlement program in the United States.)
The rightness/righteousness thing, I believe, is your attempt to suggest that we (or I) shouldn’t contend for a particular point of view versus an opposing point of view; or shouldn’t do so and claim any particular scriptural interpretation as definitive or dispositive. And doing so is a form of self-righteousness.
If I’m correct, this site is a glass house full of stone throwers; or maybe just those of us who cite scripture as an authority have occupancy. (See, I’m trying to relate to you.)
What Locke has to say about anything in this context is not of any relevance. I’m not attacking capitalism Timo (I am attacking greed however). I’m just saying that it has nothing to do with righteousness, or Christianity, or God. (Are you suggesting that capitalism and greed are synonymous?)
If Locke, whom I have long admired, is suggesting that governments do not reserve the right to tax; then he’s wrong. (Somehow I doubt that’s what he’s saying.)
On a positive note, it is rather noteworthy I think that Joe Erwin, Jean Corbeau, Elaine Nelson, Stephen Ferguson, Tim, Preston Foster, Chris Barrett and Stephen Foster all somehow seem to be in basic agreement.
This is not evidence that we are right, but how often will this happen?!
Yes, I think deep down we do argue a lot about a lot of issues, but I think most of us, perhaps with the exception of William, do embrace what I see as a central message of the Gospel in Luke 4:16-20, which Jesus proclaimed at the opening of His ministry:
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
"it is rather noteworthy I think that Joe Erwin, Jean Corbeau, Elaine Nelson, Stephen Ferguson, Tim, Preston Foster, Chris Barrett and Stephen Foster all somehow seem to be in basic agreement."
It can be interpreted to mean they are always in agreement. Did you have something else in mind? That we are all wrong? Or all right? Bright people often agree 😉
Your conclusion that you know everybody is 'dead serious' is almost god-like prescience. Tone it down.
Fine. I'll tone it down. But I don't think my stating that everybody here is dead serious, which can be plainly seen by browsing the comments above, demonstrates any more "god-like prescience" than the suggestion that the invisible Creator of the Universe is a laissez-faire capitalist. You have to appreciate the irony of your suggestion.
I suppose we can say that US Social Security is an "entitlement" program, but as Elaine has mentioned, we do pay into both Social Security and Medicare. I began paying into Social Security in 1955, and I continue to pay in on any current income. One problem, though, that some people fail to acknowledge, is that those who pay more into Social Security, also receive higher payouts. Perhaps that is justifiable, although I do not really favor it. Where it becomes a problem is connected with how much is actually paid in. We all pay a percentage of our income into Social Security, but only up to about $110,000 per year. Many people who make less than that are apparently unaware of this inequity. So, the person who make $110K per year and the one who makes $110 million dollars per year pay exactly the same amount into Social Security. In what sense is this equitable? And, by the way, does anyone seriously believe that people who earn $50 million per year WORK HARDER than people who earn $50 thousand per year? Why should people who earn their income from dividends, rather than actual labor, be taxed at a higher rate? People with greater expendable income can AFFORD to pay at a higher rate.
Thanks, Timo. Also, I meant, why should those with earnings from dividends be taxed at LOWER rate than those with earned income? I'm afraid I do not know much about how SS funds are managed…. Of course, they do have to be managed/invested somehow, and one would wish for the best.
William, I'm trying to figure which question you are asking and to whom. Sorry, I just kind of lost the train of thought.
It seems to me that the case could be made that unbridled capitalism is akin to "nature red in tooth and claw," a viscious and competitive struggle for existence in which only the strong and the lucky survive. Those who survive get to feel superior. That seems also to be very much an image that is projected onto evolution by those who advocate for unbridled capitalism…. What am I missing?
It seems to me that the case could be made that unbridled capitalism is akin to "nature red in tooth and claw," a viscious and competitive struggle for existence in which only the strong and the lucky survive. Those who survive get to feel superior. That seems also to be very much an image that is projected onto evolution by those who advocate for unbridled capitalism…. What am I missing?
Agreed. I believe someone very smart observed that it was ironic that American fundamentalist Christians rejected scientific Darwinism by natural selection as supposedly being against God and the Bible, yet then went on to embrace social and economic Social Darwinism as supposedly being supported by God and the Bible.
Timo,
You and William have a certain ideological ‘take’ or opinion of the proper role the government in the American society.
I will not get into a political discussion with you on this particular thread; but you should note that in my blog I did opine that IF Christians and Jews participated in personal charity at the levels we should that such activity could possibly be more effective than any government program could ever hope to be.
There’s no tax excuse—as in we are taxed too much to give— because charitable contributions are tax deductible.
Whenever the government prohibits us from doing what God has told us to do or mandates that we do what God has told us not to do, there’s a problem. While this is not the case—while we still have daylight—we’ve no excuse.
Meanwhile, Caesar has the authority to tax. We may not like it, but it is not inherently evil for tax revenue to aid those who are less fortunate.
It is a testament to the power of political propaganda that has Christians thinking otherwise; along with the fact that we all feel some sense of moral superiority to those with less than we have.
There’s no tax excuse—as in we are taxed too much to give— because charitable contributions are tax deductible.
This really hits the nail on the head. Many of my friends are more conservatively oriented than I am and argue that charitable giving — particularly on the part of the church — should largely replace government-run social programs and, thus, the taxation that funds them.
That's all well and good if we lived in some magical fantasy land in which people made charitable contributions on any meaningful level that could compete with the social programs upon which so many people rely (medicare and medicaid being the big ones they usually bring up) — but unfortunately, we don't live on that magical fantasy land. Thus, it's a ridiculous position without any merit. In fact, simple economics would suggest that charitable contributions would markedly decline in the absense of taxation, since there'd be no benefit of deduction. If anybody here actually believes that an appreciable slice of the population is motivated to give for any reason beyond the tax benefit, you're profoundly, fantastically ignorant of human nature.
As Jesus himself pointed out, we — and any society — will always have the poor, as well as the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, the mentally ill, and bless their hearts, the just plain stupid and unemployable. I've always found it curious that American conservative Christians are so quick to decry governmental support, however inefficient it may be, for those who need it, as though they're all somehow not carrying their weight when that's patently not the case. A desire to make those programs more efficient, I understand. A desire to do away with them altogether? Don't get it.
I'll stop there before I get off on a tangent, but I've read some pretty pitiful positions in this thread — and I'm not even a Christian. I'm a totally amoral, heathen atheist homosexual who wouldn't know love, charity, faith, patience, forgiveness, et al. if they bit me on my hell-bound keister, remember? This whole argument just illustrates one of many, many examples of how the church abdicates its huge potential to be a force for good in the world. I've no regrets over leaving it.
As noted elsewhere, people are having heated arguments about terms they don’t even define correctly, the number one being ‘conservative’. Perhaps time for a little re-education. From my old Political Science textbook ‘Political Ideologies: An Introduction’ by Andrew Keywood at page 83:
‘Conservatives, however, are not prepared to go as far as laissez-faire liberals in believing that each individuals has an absolute right to use their property however they may chose. While libertarian conservatives [i.e. modern American-Reganomics and Thatcherism] support an essentially liberal view of property, conservatives have traditionally argued that all rights, including property rights, entail obligations. Property is not an issue for the individual alone, but is also of importance to society.
The rights of the individual must be balanced against the well-being of society or the nation. If for example, conservatives believe that the national interest is served by government intervention in the economy, then the freedom of the business must be curtailed.
The present generation is, in that sense, the custodian of wealth of the nation and has a duty to preserve and protect it for the benefit of future generations. Harold Macmillan, the UK Conservative prime minister, 1957-63, expressed just such a position in the 1980s when he objected to the Thatcher government’s policy of privitization, describing it as ‘selling off the family silver.’ (emphasis added)
And on page 88 about ‘High Toryism’ or ‘One Nation Conservatism’:
‘While ‘high’ Toryism articulates a neo-feudal belief in a ruling class, the Tory tradition is also hospitable to welfarist and reformist ideals, providing these serve the cause of social continuity.’ (emphasis added)
And finally to use an analogy from the new Dark Knight Rises movie:
Stephen,
I agree totally that a fruitful outcome from any discussion must have clear descriptions. I appreciate where you're trying to go with the examples you provided. Still, I don't think we're quite on the mark yet.
Part of the challenge in finding accurate descriptors is separating the claims and the arguments from the basic principles. This will be a real challenge given the amount of argument that has been made over the years.
One of the most insightful authors I have found in recent years on the topic is Mark Levin. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with him, he is one of the most outstandingly insightful and thorough scholars of our time. His research is deep and his reasoning crystal clear from cause to effect. I highly recommend his recent books "Liberty and Tyranny" and "Ameritopia." Though I'm having a hard time reading the latter because his research demands a level of attention I am not typically able to devote to understanding what he is saying.
No wonder!!! If you have been reading Mark Levin as opposed to Ellen White (The Great Controversy), this absolutely explains everything!
I listen to Levin regularly, Mr. Noel, so I know of where I speak. Levin, among others, sees American political liberals (leftists, the left) as the focus of evil in the modern world; case closed.
He espouses hatred toward his ideological adversaries. Of course, there is no hint of love/Christianity in his philosophy as perhaps there should not be, since he is talking politics and economic and political philosophy generally.
This makes my point that economic philosophy is not to be confused with Christianity. Levin purports to make a (U.S.) constitutional case against the government doing whatever he opposes; which again has nothing to do with the Bible, or God, or religion.
Reading Daniel, Revelation, and The Great Controversy’s take on these prophetic books leads you to understand that those who claim to represent God, or speak for God, or essentially be God are more prophetically ominous than those who apparently deny His existence.
Stephen,
This is going to sound strange, and believe me, it’s as weird for me as it probably is for you, but… I think we actually… agree on something?
Great post, and well said. I’m familiar with Levin as well, and even from the atheistic bystander perspective, for what it may be worth, I think you’re spot on.
Thanks Tim. Above you may note that the so-called moderator has allowed Noel to again call me a liar with impunity.
I challenge Noel to demonstrate some decorum; but equally important, to quote me lying.
If he cannot do so, I demand an apology from him and from the so-called moderator; whose objectivity is clearly compromised.
Do we need to change the Note to Commenters to perhaps delete “…we try to operate on the principles of Christ and not attack people we disagree with…”?
I lost my composure. On second thought, I retract my demand for an apology from both Noel and the so-called moderator.
This isn’t about me, it’s about greed.
Is Mark Levin a Christian and is his message Christian? As for utopianism, couldn't one argue Christianity is a utopian 'ism' itself?
Stephen,
You raised the excellent point earlier about the need to have clear meanings for the terms we use in this discussion. "Utopia" is another term needing definition because greatly-conflicting concepts are widespread. The best history and definition of the term you will find in print is in Mark Levin's book "Ameritopia."
Stephen,
Obviously you are reading what detractors are saying about Mark Levin instead of what he actually says and wrote. The two could hardly be more opposite. Mr. Levin has many critics because he has so thoroughly documented and exposed the falsehoods and deceptions that are the DNA of liberal-socialism. What could possibly be wrong with his calls for us to return to the principles on which our nation was established and which gave us the greatest prosperity of any nation on the planet? (Wait. Before you answer that question I need some assurance that you are actually reading what he has written instead of repeating the lies being told about him. Do you have the courage and intellectual honesty to do that?)
My invitation still stands for you to participate in real charity in action. What do you have to lose by spending a few hours of your time helping someone else according to God's model?
Timo,
You may have missed my response to Tim in this regard, but the love of money is what greed is and greed is manifested in the love of self-seeking, and self-serving, and self indulgence.
Money is simply currency by which good and services are exchanged by human beings. Greed, self-seeking, self-serving, and self indulgence are evil’s roots. Before money was ever invented, greed, self-seeking, self-serving, and self indulgence existed.
After money had been invented the love of its acquisition and accumulation is a chief means by which greed, self-seeking, self-serving and self indulgence are now manifested.
I’m certain you actually know this already.
Sometimes I think you disagree with me for sport, or exercise, or maybe practice.
Given your position and responsibilities on this site you might consider trying to be objective/neutral (although we’re probably way late on that).
Then again, maybe you’re just joking and perhaps I should simply lighten up, huh?
See what I mean…? Are you serious? How can the love of acquiring and accumulating money not represent “a chief means by which greed, self-seeking, self-serving and self indulgence are now manifested,” demonstrated, and expressed?
I mean, does the sun rise in the east and set in the west? Do you actually disagree with this, man? (Or are trying to demonstrate how ridiculous disagreement with 1 Timothy 6: 5-10 sounds?)
BTW, personally, I’d much rather go golfing.
Timo,
From the beginning, I said “…a chief means by which greed, self-seeking, self-serving…”
Listen man, you probably won’t hear me telling you how good I am, and how much I do, or give, or how much I practice what I believe; because I am the chief of sinners.
So your points about “no assurance you have overcome those deeper issues” are taken (whosever direction at which they are directed).
William just out of interest (and not judging, just enquiring as to your perspective):
1. In your own layman's terms, what you do mean by 'liberal-socialism'?
2. What is the central thesis of Mark Levin?
3. How do you say any of your socio-economic-political views are informed by the Bible?
And I note Levin himself provides a link to the Epilogue of his book Ameritopia (to address your comment that we should just Levin by what he says, not what his detractors say):
http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/hosted_files/ameritopia/LevinEpilogue.pdf
William, the only statement I can find about Christianity in Levin’s epilogue is the following:
Levin
'Moreover, Judaism and Christianity, among other religions, teach the altruism of the individual.'
Levin then appears to define ‘Ameritopia’ as the centralization of political power in a professional and technical bureaucracy:
'It is neither prudential nor virtuous to downplay or dismiss the obvious—that America has already transformed into Ameritopia. The centralization and consolidation of power in a political class that insulates its agenda in entrenched experts and administrators, whose authority is also self-perpetuating, is apparent all around us and growing more formidable.'
Josiah – Levin’s Tyrant King
The great iron of course is that ancient Judaism indeed went through its own ‘Ameritopian’ centralization and bureaucratisation process by King Josiah. Josiah banned all sacred sacrifices outside of the Temple Jerusalem, destroyed rural alters, confirmed the Jerusalem family Levitical priests over and above priests throughout the rest of the country.
Applying Levin’s thesis, Josiah should have been the most wicked king in Jewish history. Yet, God accounted Josiah as one of the greatest and most pious kings in history.
Biblical Individualism and Communalism
As an Australian, I am not really convinced how you can say government welfare is a sin. You Americans have your own historical reasons for being fearful of Federal Governments (revolution against the King of England and all that), but I don’t really understand how that political ideology can be said to be the only acceptable biblical view?
The American obsession with extremist individualism and pursuit of capital at all costs seems somewhat bizare, and frankly to the very type of communal society the Apostles tried to building in Acts 2:42,43,44,45,46 and 47:
'They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.'
Who see how the NT viewed capitalist individualism in the story Acts 5:3 when Ananias didn’t embrace Christian Communalism by not donating all the money to the Jesus Commune.
Conclusion
Feel free to believe Levin and his extremist-right views. However, I am not convinced his views could in any way be considered ‘Christian’ or ‘biblical’.
Noel,
Reading, as they used to say, is fundamental. The seeming volumes that I have written over the course of the past three years on this site, either in response to the writing of others or in response to the many blogs that I have written, will have to inform you as to what I think and believe.
Naturally there is nothing that I actually wrote about Levin which you can challenge as untrue, just as there has been nothing that I actually wrote in my blog which you can challenge as untrue, just as there is nothing that I have written in subsequent commentary that you can challenge as untrue, so you are left to give your own summarization/spin of what I didn’t actually write, and then claim that I wrote it.
As if that wasn’t enough, you label that which I didn’t write as lies.
Simply copy and paste what I’ve written, place it in quotation marks; and then point out what is untrue about it.
Do you understand that the U.S. federal government does not forbid us from engaging in charitable activity and that U.S. federal government tax policies actually encourage charitable activity?
You have already acknowledged that the level of voluntary charitable activity and giving is insufficient to the scale of the problems.
Do you recognize and accept that the United States is not a theocracy; and that what you perceive is the Bible's way or God’s way of doing something has no bearing on how the constitutional republic that is the United States of America does whatever it happens to do?
You have already grudgingly acknowledged that the love of money, which exemplifies greed, is a root of all manner of evil (or whatever version softens it up enough).
Do you realize that neither capitalism nor economic conservatism is in any way Christian? Do you realize that 16th, 17th, and 18th century European philosophers such as Francis Bacon, Rousseau and John Locke were not atheists; and that most western liberal economic and social philosophy is due to them?
Sadly, it’s apparent these answers are “No.”
Stephen,
Your arguments remind me of the story of Cain and Abel. Both offered sacrifices to God, but only one was accepted by God because it was given according to His instructions. Thus from the earliest record of God's dealings with man we have proof that attempting to do God's work by any means other than the instructions He has given is contrary to His will. It is an act of disobedience and sin that leads to death.
You keep defending government playing a role in public welfare despite the total absence of such instruction in scripture and extensive instruction about personal responsibility in providing charity. I do not question your desire to do good and help those in need. Even so, your advocations are spreading a concept that is not according to God's instructions and encouraging people to support that concept as if it were endorsed by God. So it looks like you are encouraging people to sin by disobeying God.
Be careful when making a broad charge like greed as you have. Such charges are a diversionary tactic used to move attention away from the guilty so they can avoid being held accountable. I am not accusing you of being complicit in anything illegal, but you are being a vocal defender of the corrupt. Who am I calling corrput? Those who exercise power over financial decisions on Wall Street, in the halls of Cogress and the man who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He didn't invent the situation, bue he and his cronies are profiting handsomely from it while using their positions of power to prevent law enforcement from investigating and prosecuting the worst offenders.
The situation is the result of decades of increasing liberal-socialist policies that cross political party lines, but are most common among the powerful who are members of the Democratic party. The foundations of our financial system have been eroded in ways allowing the influential and powerful to transact huge volumes of transactions letting them pocket profits based on lies. What did our government do after the banks took their profits home and discovered that their financial houses of cards were collapsing? It printed more money for the banks to use to strengthen their financial standing while continuing their corrupt actions.
Why are they not being investigated? Because President Obama issued a directive to all federal law enforcement agencies prohibiting them from investigating potential fraud or other crimes where that business or the corporate officers are supporters of either Obama or leading Democratic members of Congress. How do I know this? I am not at liberty to give you specific details because an FBI investigation is still considered "open." What I can tell you is that we uncovered the suspicion of fraud by a federal contractor, documented it and referred it to the FBI for investigation and prosecution. We were less than a month from the case being presented to a federal grand jury for indictments when we learned that orders had come from Attorney general Eric Holder's office prohibiting the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies from investigating anyone who was a donor to the political campaigns of either Obama or leading Democrats.
Stephen, when will you stop being a disciple and defender of the corrupt and their teachings?
Will another individual who perhaps sees things similar to Noel, please decipher for us all what this post of Noel’s has to do with my blog, or greed?
Why does the Bible have to provide instruction to the U.S. federal government (or any other government) in order for the U.S. federal government (or any other government) to legitimately do whatever it may eventually do?
When God expressly forbids His people from doing something, they should not do it. If the government mandates that we do what God has expressly forbidden us from doing, we are to only obey God.
There is no prohibition in scripture for any government to use its tax revenues to provide food assistance or medical assistance or housing assistance to its poor people. (This suggestion is in fact ridiculous).
To the extent that there is “extensive instruction about personal responsibility in providing charity” in the Bible, then those who claim to follow the Bible (and obey) God have a “personal responsibility” to be charitable.
But again, Noel has to claim that I wrote something that I did not write, or imply, in order to make whatever point he is trying to make. Here of course is a perfect example: “Even so, your advocations are spreading a concept that is not according to God's instructions and encouraging people to support that concept as if it were endorsed by God. So it looks like you are encouraging people to sin by disobeying God.”
(Never mind his very last line, “…when will you stop being a disciple and defender of the corrupt and their teachings?)
Of course, I never encouraged people to disobey God, because doing something that God did not forbid is not disobeying God. God has not forbidden the government from using tax revenues for the poor, so doing so is not disobedient to God.
God never gave instructions to play basketball nor provided instructions how to play basketball; but playing basketball is not disobeying God. God has instructed us not to defile our body temples, so not exercising and eating poorly is disobedience to this principle. Likewise God has instructed His followers to love their neighbors, so not engaging in charity may be disobedient to this principle.
I would imagine there are better examples and analogies. but someone will probably understand.
Perhaps someone else can comment on his ideological protestations and analyze his political opinions.
“God has not forbidden the government from using tax revenues for the poor, so doing so is not disobedient to God.”
Even assuming we were to live in a theocracy:
Deuteronomy 14:28-29:
‘At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.’
This doesn’t appear to be personal, voluntary charity. This appears to be state-sanctioned public welfare, coordinated by the centralised government by professional bureaucratic officials.
But as you say, we don’t live in theocracy anymore – America is a secular democracy. I get William has strong political views, and there is nothing wrong with that. What I don’t get at all, and don’t think he has explained at all, is how he can say those partisan political views are biblical and that contrary views about the role of government are unbiblical? His Levin chap talks about enlightenment political philosophers, but again I don’t see any biblical support for those views.
Mark Levin's appearance on Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's programs is all I need to know.
It is no surprise that there is fraud in government; this has happened since government were first formed. Or that Wall Street essentially makes the rules about money. Again, that is supposed to be news? It matters not which party is in power because the power is in those who hold the gold.
Now, can you stop long enough to offer a possible solution? Is there any form of government that can be offered that will make men honest and have integrity in all their decisions? Money is power and access to it contracts the soul in direct proportion to the increasing amounts.
The more important question is not whether there is a better form of government, but if we as Christians who claim to be followers of God can stand blameless in the judgement if we have been complicit with or defended such corruption.
Elaine,
"Mark Levin's appearance on Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's programs is all I need to know."
Unfortunately there are millions of Americans who do not have your discernment. It is particularly sad to see how many of them are professing Christians. I don't think those who share some of the policy positions that these people promote know how many people are turned off by the attitudes and behavior of these spokes people. They are a lot of the reason that political dialog (which has always been challenging) in the public forum (and many private forums) is pretty much worthless today.
I’m just wondering, Rudy, shouldn’t the attitude and behavior that these spokes people uniformly display give those who may tend to share some of their policy positions pause?
Perhaps their attitudes and behaviors have given rise, from a cultural perspective, to the policy positions that these spokes people hold; or perhaps even the other way around.
Stephen,
It is an absolute mystery to me how so people can imagine that Jesus would approve of those attitudes.
Corruption, of course, is a byproduct of greed; which is the root of evil.
William,
Apparently you have not studied the story of Cain and Abel very carefully. It is not preoccupied with obedience as you suggest. If it were, then surely it would present the command or instruction that Cain disobeyed. But, there is no command or instruction.
There is no basis in this story for assuming that it was the gift and not the giver that was rejected. God tells Cain that if "he" does right then "he" will be accepted. We know from scripture that "God looks on the heart". Given the actual details of this story it makes more sense to interpret this as God rejecting the attitude or motive behind the gift.
I know it is natural to assume that Cain was told to bring a lamb, but the Bible does not say that. Regardless, of the exact nature Cain's unrighteousness, the book of Hebrews makes it clear that we should not focus on obedience when interpreting this story.
Legalism always wants to focus on obedience as if that is what pleases God. But, Hebrews 11:4 tells that we must have faith to please him. And Hebrews 11:6 tells us that Abel and his sacrifice were accepted because he had faith.
Legalism always forgets that the law was given at Sinai (Romans 5) to expose sin. Our inability to truly keep the law demonstrates our utter helplessness to comply with God's expectations, to please Him. Our inability to obey the law or to simply "do right" is the result of our broken relationship to God. The first step in redemption is to reconnect through faith. Legalism always tries to reduce God's expectations to the law because legalists have some unexplainable confidence that they can please God with obedience. An honest read of the scriptures does not suggest this will ever be true in this life. While good works flow from a restored relationship, it is abundantly clear that we will not be free of sin before our resurrection or ascension at the 2nd coming.
Cain did something worse than disobey. He was only one generation from Eden and he more clearly understood what was right than anyone in all of history except his parents, and yet, he chose not to do right. The clear implication of God's confrontation is that Cain is rebelling against the God given urge to do right. He is rebelling against that part of his own make up as a human being that made him most like the God in whose image he had been begotten.
Those who are preoccupied with obedience treat the scriptures as paper pope. You have demonstrated that by insisting that someone offer you a Biblical directive to help the poor via the government. I am not saying this is not a debatable issue. But, IMO it is not debatable that God expects us to not only help the poor, but to strive for justice for our fellowman.
If you want to argue that one way of accomplishing these goals is better than another, then go for it. But, you need to dump your legalistic reading of the scripture to justify your opinion on the matter. Jesus made it as clear as possible in Matthew 5 that God expects us to far exceed the literal reading of his instruction.
If there is anything at all to the stories told in the Bible and the message of Jesus, the picture emerges of a God who tried very hard to create beings that were competent and capable of freely making wise choices when presented with unanticipated dilemmas–rather than programmed robots who would blindly follow his instructions. And, it seems, that one of the wise choices He hoped for was that humans would generously care for each other and treat one another with fairness.
Can ask a silly question of Americans – how much does the American Civil War still colour this debate? No doubt if I was an African American from Alabama, I would note that it was the so called evil Federal Government who had done more for my civil rights and welfare than my State?
Are those who are the most anti-Federal Government more likely to be white, rural and live in the South? Is their attitude against the consolidation of power in a centralised, professional, Federal Government a hallmark of the rebellion against the British Government, then support of Jefferson's Anti-Federalist views, then part of the succession states in the US Civil War, and then finally the role of the Federal Government in supposedly subverting State's rights during the Civil Right's Movement? To these people, is the Federal Government is only a source of evil, not good?
And are those who are the most pro-Federal more likely to be black (or hispanic or other ethnic minority), urban and live in the North? Is their attitude in favour of the consolidation or power in centralised government a hallmark of Britain's anti-slavery policies, then support for Alexander Hammilton's pro-Federalist views, and then the role of the Union Government in abolishing slavery, and then the role of the Federal Government in ultimately undoing segregation and civil rights? To these people, is the Federal Government is potentally a source of good, not merely evil?
Another stupid question – I assume Stephen is from the north, black and urban, whilst William from the south, white and rural?
Your handle on American politics and political history is most impressive, I must say.
Frankly, the vast majority of Americans do not have a clue as to why they think and react and vote the way they do; and certainly know nothing about the sociopolitical dynamics of other countries.
I confess that you have nailed it. Our attitudes toward the role of government have their roots precisely in this history.
The white American south, to this day, almost invariably votes against federal governmental authority. Black Americans almost invariably vote in favor of federal governmental authority, in Hamiltonian tradition. The historical roles of slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement are seminal in this regard.
Of course, this has nothing to do with atheistic communism whatsoever, but such is the triumph of right wing political propaganda. The danger is that many Americans have ignorantly conflated capitalism and conservatism with Christianity.
Yes, as a non-American, the thing that has disturbed me most by some (especially William's comments) is the association of certain political views with Christianity – as if Bible supported that particular political or ecconomic view and no other. Having lived in both Australia and UK, no side of politics shares William's views of the American far-right.
For example, our conservative (just conservative) prime minister John Howard (Bush's 'man of steal') introduced strong gun control and a private mandate for health care (if you earnt a certain salary and didn't have health care you paid a 1% Levy on your taxes). Both sides of politics are agreeing to introduce a disability health scheme – a massive expansion of the welfare system.
According to William's way of thinking, the conservative (yes conservative) governments of both Australia and UK must be akin to atheistic communist regimes! Our right-wing parties are probably equal to, and in some cases to the left of, your Democrat Party. And if that is our right wings of politics, I would hate to think about what he says about our left-wing Labor Party?
Funny thing is, I am aware of no religious leader of any denomination in Australia or the UK who shares William's views about welfare being a sin. Again, he can make arguments that it is against your US Constitution, but that is hardly proof that his views are supported by the Bible. If his views were supported by the Bible, then presumably it wouldn't just be a US thing but rather all nations on earth would have to follow it.
Sorry another stupid question for William re your views that Government should not be involved in providing health and welfare. Are you saying all levels of Government (Federal, State and local) should not provide health and welfare for its citizens, or are you merely saying the Federal Government should not be involved?
I always thought the Tea-Party types were ok with State and local governments providing health and welfare, just not a centralised Federal Government. However, how is that supported or not supported in the Bible? Of course in most countries around the world, there is only 1 or 2 level of government, not 3 like in the US. Not all countries have states (e.g. UK).
Stephen,
There is far more to the issue than the role of government in health care.
The overarching issue is the objective of liberal-socialism to seize and exercise complete control of every aspect in the life of the citizen. The Bible says that God owns everything and entrusts us to manage what portion of that he gives to us and holds us responsible for our stewardship, which includes obeying his instructions for charity. In contrast, the liberal-socialist (historically primarily members of the Democratic party but in recent decades also growing numbers of the Republican party) believe that the government owns everything and that citizens should only have what the government permits them to have. This concept is straight out of the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Joseph Engels. So they have built an ever-growing system of laws, taxes and regulations that make it ever more difficult for the individual to decide things for themselves. Property taxes function as if the person whose name is on the property deed is merely renting the land from the government. The same with factories and businesses where you are taxed on the value of your machinery. One issue you may hear about is debate over the "death tax" where estates larger than a certain value are taxed at double-digit rates with the result that estates often must be liquidated to pay the taxes and a farm or business that was in the family for generations ceases to exist.
Government has a long and often tragic record of claiming to solve a problem while actually making it worse and creating even larger problems, which they then use as the basis for claiming a new government program and more taxes are needed to solve that problem. I don't think I have ever heard a politician admit that they caused any of the problems, but they're quick to jump onto the next "solution." This has grown into an ever-expanding web of lies. For example, the Obama administration claims they solved the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by bringing in a team of "experts" to "advise" the oil company on how to plug the well. None of the so-called "experts" had any experience with oil will drilling or subocean work. Still, they imposed requirements to "solve" the situation. The results? The solution proposed by BP worked. But the government experts demanded that they do things costing more than $300 million that did not work and actually delayed the solution by more than two weeks.
Vast sums of money have been spent to fund the "war on poverty" yet just as many people remain "in poverty" (by the government definition) as ever and the slow economy is pushing that number to record levels. Never mind that the poorest person in America has an income and enjoys a lifestyle that would make them extremely wealthy in two-thirds of the world. The primary justification used to push passage of "ObamaCare" was the claim that it would provide medical care to the estimated 40 million Americans without insurance coverage. Since then we've learned that the number is nowhere near that large (probably lower than 10 million) and the law will actually increase the number of people without coverage.
Add the environmental zealots and that President Obama is absolutely committed to eliminating the use of all fossil fuels. Environmental regulations now seek to control the emission of carbon dioxide gas based on the claim that it is causing global warming. The evidence so far is that industrial CO2 emissions are causing increased plant growth and driving higher production of crops and that the weather changes according to natural cycles not influenced by human actions. Still, the Environmental Protection Agency is forcing the shutdown of coal-fired electric generating plants. Wind and solar generation have been touted as replacement sources, but those efforts are delivering only a tiny fraction of the requirement while many of the companies involved are going bankrupt (even after receiving government assistance) because the actual demand is so small compared to the claims of politicians. Starting next summer there will be rolling power blackouts across large parts of the country because there simply won't be enough electricity to go around. The Obama administration claims to support the development of energy sources but blocks oil production at every turn. They did give the first license to build a nuclear plant granted in 30 years but it won't produce the first watt for at least ten years.
With a picture like that, can you see how citizens would become disenchanted with their leaders to the point of actively demanding change? The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is a popular uprising of citizens apart from political power structures that is calling for government to control spending, exercise fiscal sanity, reduce in taxes and respect private property and defend historic liberties. Two years when the TEA Party first rose to prominence it was maligned in every possible way. Some of the biggest claims were that party members advocated violence, were racially prejudiced and were anti-government. I used to be a newspaper reporter. I have seen lines or police protecting rallies held by the major political parties from opposing protesters. A local TEA Party rally was nothing of the sort. It was probably the most polite and peaceable public rally I have ever witnessed. Everyone was respectful and well behaved. I was actually quite amazed by the civility because it was such a contrast to what I had witnessed in years past at rallies held by the major political parties where police lines were needed to protect from protesters. There were to police officers at the gate even though elected public officials and individuals on national prominence were there. People of all races were in attendance and two of the most eloquent speakers were black.
My point of contention with Mr. Foster is his advocation of government policy while ignoring that the primary objective of liberal-socialism is complete control of society including the elimination of all faith in God and the eradication of religion from society. That objective is clearly stated in "The Communist Manifesto" which is the foundational document on which the movement is based but denied by most liberals. The Obama administration has been the most active in American history in setting policies and issuing regulations designed to limit and restrict the free exercise of religion, the delivery of charity and the function of faith-based ministries. So, how can a person claim to be a Christian while advocating for what is dedicated to the destruction of faith and freedom? So, is it not logical to conclude that Mr. Foster's greater allegiance is to what is opposed to God?
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
This paranoid diatribe speaks for itself, and is a good example of just believing what one wishes to believe.
"In contrast, the liberal-socialist (historically primarily members of the Democratic party but in recent decades also growing numbers of the Republican party) believe that the government owns everything and that citizens should only have what the government permits them to have."
What evidence do you have in support of this statement? What do you mean by everything? I quoted to you above that historically even conservatives believed that sovereignty ultimately resided in the State, and to society as a whole, where the individual was only the temporary custodian of that property.
This is usually known by the doctrine of tenure – at least in the UK and Australia, and is the foundation of all property rights. Even 'fee simple' property is not absolute – it is still a right bestowed from the State/Crown. In feudal times, where the doctrine developed, the person who owned the land in fee simple still owed obligations, not just rights, to their feudal overlords. Similarly, in Bible times, 'freedmen' owed duties and obligations, not just rights, to their masters following emancipation, as did citizens to the State and Emperor.
Just because Glenn Beck says Obama is a communist doesn't make him so. I am not an American, which I hope gives me a little more objectivity to it. I can tell you, by world standards, he is every hardly left-wing. Some his views, and those of the Democrats, would be considered conservative in my country and in most of the Developed World.
I see no evidence whatsoever of any elaborate conspiracy theory to turn the US a communist state. Respectfully, that is laughable, given the US is by far the most right-wing Western Democratic nation on the planet.
P.S. It may suprise you all, but non-Americans do know a lot about you – sometimes more than you might know about yourselves. This is because you are the new Roman Empire – and you have a massive military-economic-political empire, even with 'colonies', which includes Australia.
You have described a contrast that is critical in explaining the difference between the concepts of government that came out of Europe and America. That difference is the right bestowed by the state/crown vs. the right of the citizen. In traditional European governments all power came from the state/crown and was given to the subjects as seen fit by those who held power. In contrast, America was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and that rights come from God, not the state/crown. The American Revolution was fought to throw-off the burden of a government that disregarded and tried to stamp-out this concept of freedom. That concept is evident in the current contest between those who are calling for the restoration of freedoms and those who support government actions to take away increasing amounts of those freedoms and invest greater power in government.
By the way, I don't believe something because Glenn Beck says so. Nor Mark Levin or anyone else. I study and evalute claims against results, promises against the cost to deliver and how much freedom gets taken in the process. Most of all, I measure the politics of any person against the yardstick of God's instructions.
With a McDonald's restaurant on almost every second street corner of the world and growing (and KFC and Burger King on the other), I somehow doubt the US Government is about to undergo a massive communist nationalisation programme and seize private property.
It is not being done by a swift revolution but by a gradual erosion of basic freedoms. It used to be that an entrepreneur could buy a parcel of land and build a KFC, Burger King, or whatever because that was their business. Now you must go through all sorts of reviews and get a variety of approvals and still face the risk of the government not giving you permission to do what you want on your land. If that isn't an erosion of freedom, I don't know what it means to lose freedom.
William, much thanks. I am not quite sure though if you answered my question:
Are you saying all levels of Government (Federal, State and local) should not provide health and welfare for its citizens, or are you merely saying the Federal Government should not be involved?
My understanding is Republicans and Tea Party types do support healthcare and welfare at State and local levels. Isn't that Mitt Romney's whole argument as to why his State welfare is good; but Obama's Federal health care reforms, which otherwise seem very similar, is supposedly evil?
If you are saying your views against public welfare and health are biblical, then it must apply to all levels of government – not the Federal Republic of the US – which hardly existed in Bible times.
Stephen,
You are correct. I got going and lost track of your question. I answer with a question: "How can Christians who teach others to obey God's law not be violating God's law when the support and promote the lies on which ObamaCare is based?
It is true that a fundamental principle that led to Civil War in America was the assertion of "states rights" versus federal (central) authority. The right to own and hold slaves was one of the major issues the southern states claimed as a right that should be determined at the state level. There is a level of bigotry and hatefulness that has long continued to be associated with the claim that the rights of states supercede those of the entire nation. Interestingly, in the light of some of Stephen Ferguson's descriptions of Australian politics, American political parties have not remained consistent on this issue. There was a bigoted states rights wing of the Democratic party not so long ago (remember the 1948 convention?). Throughout the south, the Democratic party remained powerful (and profoundly corrupt) up through the 1970s. The racial integration of public schools, complete with bussing across neighborhood boundaries, led to a reaction in the white religious community, in which private schools were established, essentially to avoid integration and bussing. The protestant churches were largely segregated, and many still are, and they have become politicized. Many of the white Pentacostal churches had their roots in the south, and much of their appeal, as they rapidly spred and grew into megachurches, was based on rationalization of bigotry of all kinds. The National Rifle Association, of course, thrive on bigotry and xenophobia, and they have become increasingly bold in campaigning for and against political candidates and donating large sums to political campaigns. They do this even though such activities are expressly forbidden for nonprofit organizations. Likewise, churches have asserted that it is their right to campaign openly for political candidates. Enforcement against this has been almost entirely absent, with the only case I know of being one against a black church in Tennessee where it was alledged that there had been inappropriate advocacy for Al Gore. In the area where I live in rural Pennsylvania, it is common for Assemblies of God, and similar churches, to host gun shows and lectures by celebrity hunters–often with openly pro-NRA political advocacy. This sort of thing seems to be growing across rural America. And, of course, the members of these churches go to the far corners of the earth proclaiming this God-given message. And we are all astonished when they are not entirely welcome in some cultures.
You make an excellent observation regarding the historic roles of the two major American political parties in the aftermath of slavery.
Another common misperception among Americans is that the party labels have been descriptively consistent.
An abridged, shorthand history is that the Democrats, particularly in the South, had been the states’ rights conservatives in the aftermath of the Civil War and that radical northern Republicans were key to the abolition movement, and thus their natural political enemies.
The northern conservationist, progressive, government interventionist, trust busting wing of the Republican Party was championed at the turn of the century by Theodore Roosevelt; who ran for an interrupted third term in 1912 against conservatives.
The fissure with the Democrats started with the 1948 Democratic Convention when segregationist Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina started the Dixiecrats in protestation of the Civil Rights planks in the Democratic platform championed by northern liberals, principally then Minneapolis, MN Mayor Hubert Humphrey, a future Vice President, and civil right measures promoted by President Harry Truman (including integration of the military).
Thurmond didn’t officially become a Republican until 1964, but after Lyndon Johnson signed landmark civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965 the southern Democrats started becoming conservative Republicans.
In 1968 and 1972 Alabama Governor George Wallace, another segregationist southern Democrat, ran against Democrats while the shift continued, and Republican Richard Nixon employed the Southern Strategy by appealing to these sentiments to win the South for Republicans and permanent electoral realignment.
This realignment in the South continues among whites with only demographic changes in the electorate occasionally altering things to some degree.
Culture and religion are now conflated with economics, since race is officially politically incorrect. But think of the big picture, during the Civil War something caused hundreds of thousands of poor whites to be willing to die to defend the (economic) ‘rights’ of wealthy plantation owners to have slaves. A similar mentality and syndrome persists today, but now its capitalism camouflaged as Christianity.
This has religious liberty implications to me; but that’s a whole different blog subject.
Stephen, how true that racism is officially recognized as "politically incorrect," but it is still very common. Now, many of the cultural and religious and economic perspectives are thinly disguised racism. Perhaps I mentioned awhile back that I sometimes go down to the nearby "Mom & Pop" general store and have coffee and conversation with my geezer cronies. They are friends, in a sense, even though we disagree about many things.
One of these guys was urging me a little too aggressively to attend his church (AoG)–being pushier than a considerate friend should be. Then one day he stormed in shouting "I just HATE that Obama!" I think he was reacting to the passage of the health care legislation. But, anyway, as you can imagine, that really gave me a great impression of him and his religion. I want to go right out and join "The Church of Holiness and Hate."
As someone not born yeasterday, it is clear enough to me that partisan politics as it is currently practiced in the US is deeply and profoundly flawed. Neighbor is being pitted against neighbor in very destructive ways. There is a serious need for constructive consensus building.
While we’re on the subject Joe, did you catch my response to you on the “Summer Time and Time” thread recently?
As for this consensus building thing, it would be great but it won’t happen. There will always (and must always) be someone, something, or some people to demonize.
"partisan politics as it is currently practiced in the US is deeply and profoundly flawed. Neighbor is being pitted against neighbor in very destructive ways."
Sad, but very true and it is people who claim to be Christians on both sides who openly demonstrate hatred. It seems that the really self-righteous are the ones who exhibit the hate and the conservative right has a real tendency in this direction, IMO.
And unfortunately it is not confined to the US. It both amuses me (in a sad way) and worries me when I get an email from a SDA friend in the US pushing a Republican/Tea Party line on an issue, and then a few days later get a similar email from one of my sisters where "US" and "American" has been repalced by "Australia" and "Australian", and anyone familar with Australian law and society would know most if it does not apply. The irony is that one of my sisters is actually left-leaning when it comes to most issues.
For those who don't know, the Australian constitution does not have a 'fifth amendment' provision, we are not guaranteed the right to bear arms, prayer is not banned in our schools, and many public schools do still provide religious education if parents give consent/don't opt out. And despite getting an email saying so about once a week, allowing prayer in school in the US or in Australia will not, in itself, do anything to solve most of our problems.
The fastest known speed in the universe used to be the speed of light. But it has been replaced by the speed with which the charge of racism is raised when the only questions are about the person's character and truthfulness. That speed is only slightly faster than the time interval measured between a tragic news event and claims that the perpetrator was a member of the TEA Party or NRA.
Stephen, you're losing your cool. I raise questions of moral character, ideology and truthfulness. You respond with emotional claims and charges of racism. The color of Obama's skin is not the issue. It is the adverse impacts of his actions on society.
This is a bad habit, I suppose.
Of course, naturally, I did not charge Noel with racism, nor did I mention racism, nor did I mention President Obama.
I responded to Joe Erwin’s observations about the history of the two major U.S. political parties with historical background of same.
This followed Stephen Ferguson’s observation about the genesis of regional/ideological differences stemming from slavery; about which I also provided historical background.
Just copy and paste what I write and then point out what is inaccurate. It’s dishonest to make (inaccurate) statements and ascribe them to someone (or anyone), regardless of whether they made/said/wrote them or not.
This is a bad habit; very bad.
William,
The speed with which prejudiced bias ideas and theories are presented by almost every group with an axe to grind it amazing. That you think that the TEA Party or the NRA are somehow more likely target just reveals your prejudice.
I agree that Stephen sometimes interprets the dailog from an emotional point of view, but I think your accusation about Stephen playing the race card is unjustified.
From where I sit there is just as much prejudice and presumption in your formulations as those of Stephen. You both seem more sure of your own points of view than I think sinners (even saved ones) can justify. Both of you seem to be unable to resist the temptation from passionately defending your points of view to condescension and self righteousness.
temptation = temptation to escalate
Yeah, I admit he got to me. Believe it or not Rudy, you can only be called a liar and an agent of the devil so many times.
Pray for me, I’m not there yet.
Stephen,
Neither am I, pray for me, I'll pray for you.
Stephen is accurate that he is not the one who raised the issue of racism. I did. There is simply no question that many of the criticisms of the current President of the US are thinly disguised racism. Racists HATE him because of the color of his skin, and they find any excuse immaginable to support their hatefulness. This hateful attitude is not reserved only for the President or members of his administration–it is pervasive throughout our culture in the US. Fortunately, it is less blatant than it once was, but it is still present in most areans of life. And in many situations it is just under the surface waiting for opportunities to be expressed. William's response above is just another example.
OBAMA in 2012
🙂
As long as I don't have to see "Kevin in 2012" I can sleep soundly at night 🙂
The election will probably be in 2013 and who knows, when Labor inevitably fails, it might be Kevin 2014 – heaven helps us – and God save the flight attendents.
I am still praying for the Australian Democrats. There really was nothing wrong with having a good looking woman in charge. Natasha for PM! 🙂
Yes, I used to vote for the Democrats. There really were the sensible centre. I don't quite have the same love for their replacements, the Greens, as the new Third Force. Labor is increasingly sandwiched in the centre – nibbled at both ends. You might disagree.
Had they been not only sensible, but pragmatic, they would still be the centre. As the Labor party discovered long ago, idealism only gets you so far in politics. There is still usually a Democrat candidate here, but when not, I vote Green. Mostly on account of not being able to bring myself to vote for either of the big parties.
I plead guilty to occasionally trying to set up a conversation to expand on an articulated perspective; particularly with my blogs. (Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?)
I am not sure I understand how one can be perceived as having “not divulged his ideology,” but simultaneously be perceived as making “his apparent ideology ‘scripturally’ right.” In any case, would you perhaps prefer that my perceived ideology be scripturally wrong?
(Of course, I think that temporal political ideology and doctrine/scripture are two different things.)
Finally, on another note, would you kindly identify the particular point(s) in our great nation’s history at which you personally would have considered it a “bastion of governments based solely on equal rights and liberty”?
That sounds a little utopian to me.
In my Bible study time this morning God led me to the experience of Paul at Mars Hill and how his most eloquent and careful arguments failed to persuade anyone. The Athenians were so convinced of their correctness and so practiced at debate that they were unable to consider the knowledge of God that Paul was attempting to share. God's message to me in that study was that the group of you are like the Athenians. You are more devoted to debating about God than knowing Him and the disciples of liars, so you will never be persuaded away from your views even if an angel appeared to you and told you otherwise. So I'm wasting my time here. I pray that you will let God open your eyes to see the dangers to which your leaders are taking you and that it will happen while you still have a chance to repent of your opposition to God.
William, and God did not lead you to consider that you, yourself, might be so convinced of your correctness that you are unable to consider any perspective other than the one you hold?
You may see in this post of Noel what I mean by the religious liberty implications of conflating capitalism with Christianity.
If your ideological approach to economics and government is different, or even secular, then you are considered “in opposition to God.”
If anyone believes that Noel is practically alone in this view, or that his views do not represent a sufficient swath of the American body politic to matter, then you haven’t been paying much attention.
I should add, for any Seventh-day Adventists, it is noteworthy that Noel and others who share similar perspectives do not find prophecy and eschatological observations or discussions worthwhile. Neither do they seem to consider the SDA doctrinal perspective (The Great Controversy) as particularly relevant to current affairs and events.
Yet everyone else is blind to “dangers.” The irony, as they say, is rich.
Perhaps we should all be more reluctant to throw stones. Glass breaks so easily.
We on this site represent a glass house full of stone throwers, no doubt.
There is always doubt, my friend, we can only go with the balance of probabilities 🙂
Kevin, that is an interesting thought (probabalistic thinking) that is all too rare here, IMHO.
You mean like what are the chances that humans on earth are the only, or most, intelligent life in the universe? Oops…that should be on someone else’s thread:)
Or, what is the probability that there is a self-existent being with infinite power who did nothing until 6,000 years ago? Where there is doubt, there also has to be faith.
I assume that just about everyone who has seen Wall Street would acknowledge that Gordon Gekko is not a hero, but a thoroughly corrupt caricature of Wall Street success. I'm not sure where I see any truth at all in his greed credo, which directly violates the 10th Commandment.
I'm not sure why you assume, Stephen, that anyone would think sharing is bad. Americans are by far the most generous people in the world when it comes to charity. By definition, sharing cannot be compulsory, any more than love can be compulsory. When you give your wallet to someone who has a gun pointed at your head, you haven't shared your wallet have you?
How taxation made it into your discussion, Stephen, totally escapes me. Sharing has nothing to do with taxation. Not that taxation is theft – it just isn't a voluntary transaction, so it can't be called sharing. Does anyone think they are sharing when they comply with their legal duty to pay taxes? What is your basis for suggesting a parallel between one's attitude towards charity – which relies on choice and consent – and one's attitude towards taxation – which relies on power and coercion?
Your sharing theme implicitly and importantly acknowledges that what is to be shared belongs by right to the person doing the sharing. It acknowledges that what a person earns – what he/she gains through lawful industry or investment is his/hers. If it belonged to someone else, we couldn't call it sharing when it is transferred to another. I commend you for making this point, which is rejected by many on the Left.
Your theme also presupposes a responsibility to create or earn a resource that can pave the way to make sharing a way of life. Sloth, idleness, a sense of entitlement, and ingratitude are the character traits that lead to greed and put one in a position where he/she cannot fulfill the biblical injunction to share. There is no shame in poverty. The only shame is making choices that produce and perpetuate poverty, leaving the "victim" dependent on charity or the ability to manipulate the political process.
The best way to position ourselves to be sharers is to make sure that we are not a burden to others – that we have developed our God-given capacities so that we can meet our own needs and create wealth which will give us the opportunity to benefit others. Adam Smith said it well: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The American experiment irrefutably demonstrates that the profit motive – not greed – works far more reliably than any moral sense of service or sacrifice to encourage behavior that is most materially beneficial to society.
Nathan I know you were addressing the other Stephen, but could you please clarify for me whether you think Christians should obey Caesar per Romans 13 to pay their taxes when Caesar wants to spend that money on welfare? In Roman times, Caesars didn't just spend their taxes on defence, they spent it on free or greatly subsidized grain, where we get the word 'dole' from and the phrase 'bread and circuses.' Moreover, in NT times, most public officials were corrupt, yet Paul still said we should pay our taxes, and not just legally but as a matter of conscience.
Even in OT times, the Second Tithe in Deut 14 for the Levites, poor, orphans and alien certainly wasn't voluntary. It was collected by the centralized Government in Jerusalem by the professional literate bureaucrats of the Temple Priests.
The American experiment has certainly built a rich and powerful country, but has it built a just and Christ-like nation? Perhaps ask the people in Iraq, or those who literally die for want of health care.
The bottom line is Paul makes clear we don't just pay our taxes out of fear of prosecution, but because it is morally required.
Stephen, I don't understand how nations can be Christ-like, or why they should aspire to be Christ-like, particularly where there is Constitutional separation between church and state. The quality of our justice really depends on your definition of justice.
Tithe wasn't voluntary in O.T. times, but offerings were. And yes, I think Christians should pay taxes, whether they agree with the expenditures or not. Your questions and observations underscore my consternation that Stephen Foster introduced the subject of taxation into a blog about sharing, thus inviting the political tangent that has dominated the comments.
So, how is it that you think you know that "Americans are by far the most generous people in the world?"
This is an example of an ugly unfounded self-congratulatory ignorant-sounding assertion.
You know, Nathan, there are people reading these posts from places where people are at least as generous, in general, as Americans are, in general.
I wish that intelligent people could discourse without resorting to ad hominem name calling, Joe. But alas… Some people are just not able to rise above emotional venting and righteous indignation when they read something with which they disagree. May I suggest that you simply Google "Americans giving to charity." Arthur Brooks book, Who Really Cares, also suggests that there may actually be an inverse relationship between attitudes towards taxation and attitudes towards giving.
I'm sure one can parse statistics, but there seems to be no dispute that Americans give more money to charity per capita than the citizens of any other nation in the world. I will also readily concede that some of the greediest people in the world are the most philanthropic, and yet have a deeply contemptuous attitude towards the objects of their charity.
Perhaps I should differentiate "sharing" from "charity." Sharing connotes a more personal transaction where one does not simply write a check, but actually engages the other in the sharing process.
I wish you, Nathan, could differentiate between references to what you said, from "ad hominem name calling." The only name I mentioned was "Nathan." How is that offensive? It is not YOU, I found offensive, it is only what you SAID that I found offensive–but, maybe if you keep working on it you can ensure that you are regarded as obnoxious.
I think it is fair to say that the amount of money donated to "charitable" causes by Americans hardly serves as an acceptable metric of generosity that is comparable across nations. For example, I would not count donations to gun-rights lobbying organizations, or even the extreme animal rights/anti-science organizations, as "charitable." There might be a little blow-back on this, but I also do not think the tithing and other donations to religious organizations to pay clergy and staff and build fancy churches qualifies. How is it, while we are on the subject, that US church tax exemptions can be justified?
"The American experiment irrefutably demonstrates that the profit motive–not greed–works far more reliably than any moral sense of service or sacrifice to encourage behavior that is most materially beneficial to society."
Where do you get these unfounded proclamations, Nathan? One of my professor friends used to have a stamp that he used with bright red ink for undergraduate papers. When these undergraduates made unfounded assertions, he used the stamp, which said, as you can imagine, "BULLSHIT!" [apologies to those who are offended by language widely used by the less pristine and holy]
You embarrass yourself, Joe, by presuming that your incredulity has sufficient weight to dispatch textbook economic theory. Your unprovoked, crude, angry vocabulary – "B.S.," "ignorant," "ugly" – is a discredit to your education. It displays an intellectual lacuna that is also evident in your faux astonishment at "proclamations" that have been theoretically, experimentally, and experientially developed over hundreds of years, and thoroughly explored in the past century by economists such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. I'm sure you can't wait to delve into their writings to see if my assertions have any foundation.
I'm sorry that I seem to bring out the worst in you, Joe. Perhaps I am overly sensitive. But when someone describes an opinion that I offer, with no rancor or offense intended, as an "ugly unfounded self-congratulatory ignorant-sounding assertion", that feels like name-calling to me. Don't you see how churlish you appear? Why do the militant unbelievers commenting on the AToday website so often come across more like contemptuous "occupy wall-streeters"? Are you angered by the reality that a world view very different from your own can be quite cogently articulated by individuals that you cannot easily dismiss as stupid or corrupt?
"Intellectual lacuna?" Are you trying to communicate, or are you just being a sort of intellectual bully who is overly impressed with his command of language and economics? I have made no claim of expertise in theoretical economics. Were you quoting from one of these old guys who had all the answers (as is so evident in the successful applications of their ideas)? It seems to me that you did not attribute what you stated as fact to any of these great economics masters.
My guess is that our audience here might expect less civility from me, the infidel, than from you, the generous and highly educated Christian gentleman. You seem pretty touchy about having anyone point out or disagree with your assertions.
I am not here to argue with you, and I really do consider it a waste of time and space. So go right on doing whatever it is you do. If no one else finds your attitude abrasive, that is fine, but you do seem to thrive on the attention.
One should also take into consideration that many nations pay much higher taxes that care for all their citizens' health and education; nothing like the "do-it-yourself" philosophy that is so pervasive in the U.S. If comparisons could be made between the taxes U.S. citizens pay and those paid by other nations that have universal health care and education, it would be a much truer comparison.
Nathan,
You’ve caused me to reread the blog to hopefully gain an understanding of what I now see is your “consternation.”
You didn’t want the subject of taxation to be raised because it is political(?).
The reality is money itself is political. Money is, practically, what politics is about.
How can the concept of greed for or love of money not involve politics?
I could’ve/should’ve used “charity” instead of “sharing.” Certainly you don’t deny that redistributive social or economic policy is viewed as subversive because it is perceived as compulsory giving/charity. (Noel surely demonstrated that he believes this.) It is also viewed by some in the U.S. as unconstitutional (and therefore subversive).
In any case, the point is that compulsory charity, which occurs when tax revenues are used to assist those with less, is conceptually disliked for reasons including the notion that those who do not have are morally inferior to those who have.
You make a good point in that it isn’t charity or sharing in a real sense because it is not voluntary. But on the other hand, it is opposed to the extent that it is used to assist people who have less.
This is curious, from a Christian perspective, because we are told that all blessings come from God, and that He owns that with which we are merely entrusted; and because we understand that we should render to Caesar that which is His, and because we understand, at least in theory, that wealth is not necessarily favor.
As for Americans being so charitable, I’m not so sure what that has to do with those who are also greedy. As you say, one can be both.
To one of Joe’s points, I’ll bet that any statistic measuring national charity includes tithes which, let’s face it, is dubious.
Sorry for the typographical error, I used an upper case “h” referring to Caesar.
No, Stephen. As you well know, I do not shy away from the political angle. In fact, as I recall, it is you who routinely accuses me of making political that which you do not intend as political. You're going to have to give me a warning so I can avoid confusing your political positions with your religious positions. Knowing as I do how high you want to keep the wall of separation between church and state, I assume – obviously wrongly – that when you talk about biblical attitudes towards money, greed, and charity, you have no intention of suggesting that our Christianity should play any role whatsoever in our political beliefs. I apologize for not grasping that you wanted to talk about "compulsory sharing" rather than sharing – commonly understood by most people to be voluntary – the precise opposite of compulsory.
I believe I have clearly argued that "compulsory charity" is an oxymoron. I know of no one who would argue that redistributive justice is subversive because it is compulsory charity. It's wrong for many reasons, but that's not one of them. Could you please direct me to an authoritative source that has made that argument, so I will know this non sequitur is not just a straw man of your own creation? And while you're at it, you might also provide me a reference for published arguments that those below the poverty line (most of whom are definitely not "have-nots") are morally inferior to the haves. This strikes me as another of your straw men.
Redistributive justice, which you apparently believe in, has no more to do with sharing/charity than does productive justice, which I happen to believe in. What evidence do you have that those who oppose political policies that redistribute earnings based upon income alone are less charitable or giving than those who support such policies?
I'm fine with you supporting economic equality through political coercion if that's what you believe in. But your need to invent an oxymoronic term – "compulsory charity" – to baptize what is pure coercive Robin Hood politics strikes me as highly disingenuous. Perhaps you can favor us with follow up blogs on "compulsory love," "compulsory forgiveness," and "compulsory compassion."
Please elaborate on how one can share or be charitable with that which does not belong to him. Redistributive justice, as I understand it, is predicated on the belief that society has a claim on the fruits of citizen's private enterprise at a certain unspecified point. It takes a rather dim view of the notion that the earner has a prior right to the fruits of his labor. No?
Nathan,
You are all over the map. With all respect I think that you should reread the blog and then identify the sentences and/or paragraphs with which you disagree, and the bases for your disagreement.
I never cited studies because this is about greed and selfishness and moral judgmentalism. I am not aware of studies to that effect; correct me if they exist.
Even if there are studies, my opinions are based on statements like “Sloth, idleness, a sense of entitlement, and ingratitude are the character traits that lead to greed.”
Those traits lead to poverty; but poverty is certainly not always, or necessarily, the product of any of those character traits.
My blog was based on the reality that there are Christians who identify “sloth, idleness, a sense of entitlement, and ingratitude as character traits that lead to greed,” yet consistently pay little attention to the industrious and busy who likewise have a sense of entitlement and are ungrateful—and greedy. Do I really need to cite a study to prove that such people exist?
I’m only talking to Christians. I’m not making a theocratic case for redistribution. If anything, this represents a case for the secular government exercising its legitimate authority. Since I do believe that we are citizens of a constitutional republic and not a theocracy, I don’t have a problem with the government allocating tax revenues to (do that which I clearly prefer that it do with said revenues—) help people.
That there are Christians who would prefer that the government do other things with those revenues is curious, but nothing more. Among apparent varied reasons include attitudes of superiority, selfishness, and the love of money. (This is a point of the blog.)
If you do not believe that sharing or charity takes place when money earned by some are collected and redistributed to less fortunate others, then so be it. The fact that taxes are compulsory technically disqualifies it as either sharing or charity; but the effect is, of course, similar—“their” money goes to someone else. The government has shared “their” resources, compulsorily.
Thank you, Stephen, for this clarification. There is really little with which I disagree here – except of course the last paragraph. Your generalization – that I am all over the map – is perhaps a reflection of the reality that your blog is all over the map. I directly responded initially to specific assertions in your blog, and then, your introduction of "compulsory charity" in response was eye-popping to say the least.
You now state that taxation is "of course" similar to sharing or charity because the effect is the same. I suppose you're right – in the same sense that being raped is like being made love to – because "the effect is of course similar." (Warning to the slow: this is an analogy to underscore the profound difference between consent and coercion. I am not equating taxation to rape.) Finding points of similarity between realities that are essentially dissimilar does not make the realities similar.
Stephen, neither you nor I have a problem with taxation being allocated to help some people. We both have a problem with certain uses of tax money. I don't think either of us believes that taxation is theft, even when we disagree with the uses to which taxes are put. I suspect we both also agree that there is tremendous fraud, abuse, and lack of accountability in taxation and income redistribution systems, both by the wealthy and the poor. Presumably, we would also agree that government "handouts" can, but do not necessarily, have an undesirable impact on the intended beneficiaries. We also agree that that poverty is not necessarily the product of sloth, idleness, or a sense of entitlement.
You seem to think that I associate sloth, idleness, a sense of entitlement, and ingratitude with poverty. I do not. That is your conclusion. I associate them with greed. They are as likely to be found among tenured college professors, well-paid paid civil servants, and beneficiaries of inherited wealth as among the poor. I said there is no shame in poverty. Obviously, I could not say that if I believed poverty is caused by sloth, etc.
Why do you find it curious that some Christians think certain uses of tax revenues are wasteful and counterproductive? Don't you also think that? Do you have any evidence, other than your political and moral intuition, to support an innuendo that those who disagree with your political preferences for achieving economic justice are less Christian, less inclined to share, or more greedy than you? If not, isn't this just a feeble attempt to smear political conservatives as Gordon Gekkos?
Well Nathan, it appears that you didn’t read the blog initially very carefully, because you claim to have “directly responded initially to specific assertions in [my] blog, and then, [my] introduction of ‘compulsory charity’ in response was eye-opening to say the least.” The reality is that I “introduced” the concept of “compulsory sharing” in the blog itself; something you seem to possibly have missed when you first read the blog.
I sensed this to be possibly true when you said you weren’t sure how taxation actually made it into the discussion.
In any case, whether you caught it initially or not, it’s interesting to note that you don’t seem to have the same attitude toward the government’s taxing authority and its allocation policies that some do.
I find it intriguing that you don’t seem to be aware that attitudes such as equating taxation with thievery are prevalent. I’ve certainly heard Walter Williams and other like minded economic scholars make this argument.
It is also fascinating that you don’t seem to want to number some corporate and entrepreneurial luminaries as among the greedy; but instead list college professors, public sector employees, and wealthy heirs as the greedy.
When, Nathan, did I say or imply that I “find it curious that some Christians think certain uses of tax revenues are wasteful and counterproductive”? That is a straw man as you are certainly aware (since you note that I may also think this; which I do).
What is curious is that they believe the concept of helping the poor with tax revenues is evil, thievery, and covetous.
I have also never implied that I am not among the greedy. But if you have read what Noel had to say in this discussion about the concept he termed “social justice,” then you will have a clue as to what he and others of like mind may think about the concept of what you term “economic justice.”
What you said, Stephen, is that you find it curious that there are Christians who would rather have the government do other things than help people with its revenues. THAT is the straw man. No matter how the government uses its revenues, it is helping people. People, including Christians, simply differ in their opinions about who should receive "help," how much, and on what conditions. I understand why you find your straw man setup curious. But I don't see why you find the reality curious.
Your blog introduced "compulsory sharing" in the context of an observation that some are opposed to sharing because it will inevitably lead to taxation – "compulsory sharing." That made no sense to me. It felt like another straw man. How could any rational person be opposed to liberty because it might lead to tyranny? I didn't realize until a later response that you were seriously offering the Orwellian notion that taxation is really sharing.
You offer cryptic statements that make no sense, like: "…it's interesting to note that you don't seem to have the same attitude toward the government's taxing authority and its allocation policies that some do." Huh? Can't the same be said of everybody, including you?
When Walter Williams characterizes taxation as thievery, he is saying that to illustrate a point. As I recall, he calls it "legalized thievery," which, taken literally, is just as oxymoronic as "compulsory charity." Of course he doesn't intend it literally. What he means is that when the government collects taxes, it is taking what belongs to someone else by force, a novel concept to those who think a tax cuts consist of the government giving back to people what rightfully belongs to the government. Many in America do not believe that what a client is willing to pay me for my legal services really belongs to me.
I certainly don't mind including corporate tycoons and venture capitalists among the greedy. I just thought you had that pretty well covered. Greed will not end with wealth redistribution, and it does not predominate in any particular class of society. Envy is no less pernicious than greed. Many Christians, myself included, believe that help which encourages dependency and reduces personal responsibility has a corrosive effect on character. Government aid is not generally structured to end chronic dependency and address the values and behaviors which produce poverty. The belief of many – perhaps most – Christians that redistributive tax policy exacerbates the very problems it purports to ameliorate by its unintended, but inevitable, effect of shrinking the resource pool, is something you apparently find "curious."
I had hoped that your blog was really about sharing instead of wordsmithing to create the impression that support for coercive redistributive tax policy is inherent in the Christian virtue of sharing. Alas! I was wrong. I now see that this was just another chapter in your crusade to judgmentally smear the integrity, compassion,ad good will of politically conservative Christians. What I find curious, Stephen, is that you presumably place high value on diversity and tolerance. Yet you consistently judge and condemn fellow Christians who have opposing political values from your own.
All right, I guess I get it. When Walter Williams uses “legalized thievery” he doesn’t mean it literally, and you don’t have a problem understanding what he’s saying; but when I use “compulsory sharing” that is not understood, or understood as oxymoronic.
Walter Williams is presumably an ideological ally, so you understand him. (He’s merely illustrating a point, after all.) On the other hand, I’m not an ideological ally, so I’m speaking an indecipherable and cryptic language.
(Actually the statement that you specifically found to by cryptic—"…it's interesting to note that you don't seem to have the same attitude toward the government's taxing authority and its allocation policies that some do."—was an attempt to throw you a bone; by contrasting your views with Noel’s.)
Taxation is, most certainly, compulsory or mandatory. The government’s allocation of certain of those revenues for food/nutrition assistance, medical care costs, and housing assistance constitutes the “sharing” part.
Obviously sharing (charity) in its true sense is a voluntary act of humanitarian benevolence. The labeling of tax revenues/resources that are allocated to assist humans with basic necessities as compulsory sharing simply illustrates a point.
I gotta say that your statement “no matter how the government uses its revenues, it is helping people” is a classic! Just imagine if I had said that!
Of course I wish this was true. I contend that when government tax revenues are targeted to help people it is minimally a step in that (right) direction. (You would consider it the “left” direction.) Would you consider it the wrong direction? (Never mind, we already know the answer.)
Frankly, instead of critiquing what you perceive my agenda to be, we would’ve been better served had you presented a coherent counter to what I had to say.
I would like to think that I am tolerant of your (presumably opposing) perspective. That is to say, hopefully at least as tolerant as you are of mine.
Here's the difference, Stephen: You cast aspersions on the morality and Christianity of those who oppose your political perspectives. That strikes me as intolerant. Your faith in redistributive justice does not lead me to question your morality or your Christianity. I am not intolerant at all of your political views. I am only intolerant of your tendency to cloak your political preferences in the garb of Christian piety and moral superiority.
Whether my responses to what I perceive as considerable incoherence on your part have been conherent is of course a matter of opinion.
Apparently you didn't understand my statement that, no matter how the government uses its revenues it is helping people. I did not mean that as an absolute statement. It is a meaningless statement. Government spending also hurts people. That's the problem – government spending generally helps one favored group at the expense of other groups.
It's impossible to meaningfully discuss taxation and spending policies in the abstract. No reasonable person argues that taxation is bad. Until you talk about about specifics of spending and taxation, you're just arguing over straw men.
I strongly disagree with your characterization of government spending as "sharing." That which is done in compliance with legal regulations and mandates is not sharing. I don't see how you can say that when I turn my money over to the government it is NOT sharing, but when the government turns that same money over to another person or entity, it is indeed sharing. Can you unpack that for me?
This is about political perspectives because money generally and taxes (and the allocation or earmarking of revenues raised by them) particularly, reflect public priorities—to the extent that where, how, and on what resources are spent can reflect what is most valued.
You have acknowledged that “no reasonable person argues that taxation is bad;” which is something with which I would generally agree. If indeed taxation is not theoretically bad, why is it theoretically considered legal thievery? If taxation is not bad, why is the allocation of tax revenues to assist the elderly, children, the infirmed, and the indigent actually considered evil, and inherently wasteful? Why are so many/most of the same people who believe that taxation is legal thievery also believers that spending on the elderly, the sick, children and the poor is evil and wasteful, and why are so many of these same people Christians?
I believe it is because we have distorted and/or misplaced priorities and values; and have conflated Christianity with (temporal) economic theory.
I also believe that we love money; and consider (90% of) it as ours.
If that is “casting aspersions,” I’m sorry. But I hasten to add that I dislike paying taxes and don’t dislike money.
Cute conclusion, Stephen. I appreciate your candor. But I would implore you to resist the temptation to fight straw men. Please be specific. Exactly who endorses the generalization that the allocation of tax revenues to assist the elderly, children, the infirmed, and the indigent is evil and wasteful? Moreover, what Christians have argued that such use of tax revenues is unbiblical?
Suppose I made the following argument: "Some Christians believe that government policies which encourage personal responsibility, industry, freedom from debt for future generations, contentment, gratitude, and "family values," are cruel and evil." That would be a straw man argument, because I don't know of anyone who would actually make that argument. Nevertheless, if you, Stephen, read the tea leaves, you would reasonably infer that I was accusing you and others on the political Left of not caring about those values, while trying to maintain plausible deniability – "Moi?…but I didn't accuse you of anything – just some Christians." And you would reasonably be annoyed by my less than subtle attempt to smear your Christian compassion and moral values.
Isn't it more fair and correct to accept that both you and I care deeply about all the values we bring to bear on the discussion. You believe that redistribution of earnings to "equalize" wealth ("shared" prosperity, as the President put it over the weekend) is the best way to encourage the values which I emphasize. I believe that equal opportunity, with safety nets for the truly needy and helpless, is the best way to encourage personal responsibility, family values, etc. We have different opinions about the best way to achieve goods that we both believe in.
The main value about which we fundamentally differ is the importance of result-focused relative economic equality. I do not see that as being a goal of Christianity, a legitimate function of government, or conducive to a strong, healthy nation. I think you tend to use the poor, infirmed, children, and the elderly as mascots to advance a redistributive agenda which goes far beyond material need.
I believe it is a hard and fast rule of economics and human nature that the more you tax something (productivity and efficiency), the less you will get of it, and the more you subsidize something (non-productivity and inefficiency), the more you will get of it. Our respective positions on these issues have no more to do with our Christian compassion and integrity than do the relative merits of quantum theory or string theory.
I do agree that economic theory has nothing at all to do with Christianity. (Our assumption on what constitutes productivity and efficiency versus non-productivity and inefficiency undoubtedly differ.)
You must have not have had time to read the conversation that had immediately followed this blog with the Noel fellow.
This is no straw man argument Nathan. There are Christians (Adventists even) who fundamentally believe that it is wrong/evil for government tax revenues to go to assist the elderly, the sick, the indigent, and children. Noel is not alone by any means. His position is not a caricature.
Apparently I may not have been talking about you Nathan, because you sure aren’t talking about me when you say that I believe that redistribution of earnings to ‘equalize’ wealth (‘shared’ prosperity…) is the best way to encourage the values which [you] emphasize.”
You should always use my words (not yours) to tell me what I believe. There well may be those who have advocated that we all have the same (equal) wealth; just as there certainly are those who believe that their money shouldn’t be legally stolen to assist other people. The former do not include me and the latter apparently do not represent you.
A larger point is that many (Christians) actually love their money and believe (at least 90% of it) to be theirs. The earth may be the Lord’s, but…
😐
Blink. Blink
😐
David,
I just ran across an old Eagle Rock church directory from 1959 when your dad was pastor there, and where we had our membership at that time. Old clutter
brings back many memories!
Dear Elaine,
I am so fortunate to have come to know you just a little on these blogs this past year. In many ways I have felt so alone these decades since… Awakening. I hope you can know what a help you are to those like me. Thank you, thank you.
Yours, the kid at eagle rock
Let's see: my children, at least one, may have been in the same SS class as you were. Like us, two are non-practicing SDA, and one attends church, or began when she had a child. Funny, how that happens: no church attendance for more than 20 years and a child causes one to think about their religious education, I guess.
Yes, we have been around "several blocks" in Adventism as PKs and discover more than we wished about the inner and outer workings and politics of the church, but the one benefit is that we have a much greater knowledge of the Bible and both the good and bad of all religions. It's been a long and often lonely road of discovery but once convinced, there is no turning back.
I’m a PK too; of precisely what is it that you are now convinced?
"…once convinced, there is no turning back."
Spoken like a true fundamentalist, Elaine. I too am convinced of many of the same things you believe. You would find that most of the folks in my Sabbath School class – perhaps even my local church – believe many of the things you do. Are we not Adventists? Are we being dishonest in maintaining our membership in a branch of the Adventist club that does not require rigid adherence to the 28 F.B.s? Were the values and beliefs of America reflected in the policies of of George W. Bush? Obviously, for a time. Are they reflected in the policies of Barack Obama? We'll soon find out I guess.
If your Adventist religious community is willing to accept you as one of them, and they have the ecclesiastical authority to do so, why interpose an irrelevant abstraction to smear them with the contempt you have for the leaders of the General Conference, the Union Conference or even the local Conference? It's a bit like giving up your citizenship because America has been an oppressor and has an executive branch whose policies you loathe. Whether or not you wish to admit it, the SDA Church is bigger and more diverse than your caricature of it. Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that your convictions can be a part of constructively pushing the Church forward from within rather than a reason to fear that "turning back" will be the price you pay for belonging.
You might not be comfortable living on my branch of Adventism; and I might not be comfortable on your branch. So what? Does that mean one of us is lacking in integrity? It seems to me that your position here again has the fundamentalist rigidity that you impute to Adventism. The substance of your beliefs may not be Adventist. But your dogmatic style, doctrinal obssesion, and thought patterns often bear the unmistakable marks of good old-fashioned Adventism.
I have been convinced, and continue to be convinced, that Adventism is not what it claims to be: the true church and the only one that keeps all the commandments. I am also convinced that their "unique" and single interpretation of the prophecies were read so as to spotlight Adventism as fulfilling those prophecies. I am coonvinced that the claim of having a prophet and that her words are inspired and are to be considered equally authoritative as the Bible is to dilute the Bible as being sufficient for all time and everyone. I am convinced that there is no one "true" church, and that all God's chillun's will be with him eventually, if there is a heaven, but that we know nothing at all about where or what it is. I am convinced that no one knows when or how this earth came into being and that the Bible account is only one of many ancient stories found in all cultures and that science does not seek to explain origins but only investigates and studies their findings. I am convinced that the present position on women's ordination is a giant step backward and makes the church a laughingstock in subordinating women; I am convinced that the church's position on homosexuality ignores the decades old psychological position that it is not a "sin," and that this position and that of WO will further drive the educated, both old and young, further away from the church. I am convinced that the growth the church proclaims is the immigrant population while the natives, and especially their children, are leaving the church.
I am convinced that the church's position on sabbath is based on the Old Covenant that was declared fulfilled by Christ's death and ushered in the New Covenant with only simple commands, unlike what was originally given to former slaves. I am convinced that the attempt to obey parts of the Old Covenant and New Covenant are impossible, like being married to two women at the same time. I am convinced that there is no ambiguity whatsoever as the NT cannot be more clearly understood–as millions of Christians have easily seen; and that only Adventist glasses blind one to the true meaning. I am convinced that Christ did not come to extricate the Old Covenant and proclaim it but offers everyone eternal life simply by accepting him and showing love to his neighbor.
Of these things I am convinced; my integrity gives me no other choice than to ask that my name be removed as an Adventist so that I will not be wearing false colors.
Thanks for courageously answering my question, Elaine.
You may have deduced that EGW’s words are “considered equally authoritative as the Bible” but I haven’t understood this to be the case (nor do I believe this).
This, I believe, to be simply be a matter of perception; but I have been around long enough to certainly understand how you may still have that perception.
The intriguing issue to me is what you believe about the death of Christ. This whole thing is all about Jesus.
If Christ has not been resurrected, then “accepting” Him would be completely meaningless because He couldn’t offer eternal life to anyone.
Now I seem to recall you questioning the divinity of Christ at one point. I also seem to remember you questioning the authenticity of the gospels’ miracle accounts.
If I have you confused with another liberal/skeptic, please forgive and please correct me.
I'm too lazy to fetch the FB were they are all listed, but if I recall correctly, both the Bible and EGW are "authoritative" sources of truth. Some will argue that it doesn't mean equal to the Bible, and perhaps depends on how one uses her writings as to whether they are authoritative. In practice, I believe they are; considering how often they are quoted as more than one person's opinion. I am sure you have also observed this.
As to the resurrection: like most of any religion's beliefs, they are based on faith, so much so that "faith" has replaced the meaning of an individual's religion: "What is your faith?" Believing by faith in the resurrection is what established the Christian religion as separate from Judaism. It is where I depart from many that I cannot affirm that the resurrection was literal. There are too many unanswered questions: no actual eyewitnesses; the Gospel's account was written two generations later and the earliest writer, Mark, never mentions it; it became the central doctrine of Christianity and Paul never saw it, but only heard stories about it.
Just as in the strong belief that the Genesis creation story, and the flood, were simply called "beliefs" there would be no difficulty, IMHO. All the attempts to "prove" they are just as described, destroys the reason for faith. Faith is not needed to claim that the sun rises each morning. The more one reads, there are very similar stories in other contemporary cultures which influenced the Bible accounts; plus, they predate the Bible stories, indicating to me that the Bible writers "liberally" borrowed from and added their own touches.
Addendum:
I have chosen to believe that God is Love. Anything that in my opinion negates
that position I cannot accept. The Bible writers did not write as God dictated, but expressed their own perceptions of God and reading the entire Bible, the concepts changed over time and in the NT are very different than found in the Hebrew Bible. This apparent inconsistency has been the albatross hanging around Christianity's neck from its inception: How can the God of the OT be represented as the same as Jesus in the NT? That Jesus was God was not clearly presented in the NT and it took more than three centuries before it became accepted church doctrine. Just as most church doctrines, they were made by men.
The Christian church has been asked these questions almost from the first.
Wow Elaine. I've arrived to this blog a month late. First let me offer you excellent praise for your several cogent views of capitalisms very successful role of providing the precious "OIL" to move this USA to the pinnacle of the world's most richest, & yet the most giving nation on Earth. Yes, there is
greed in high places , & in low places. It's so easy to cast doubt on those "FAT CATS", that they had to be GREEDY, greedy, greedy, to amass those millions & billions of $$$$$. And yet, the two richest of them all, Bill Gates, & Warren Buffet, $50 billion plus each, have set up organizations to provide most of their fortunes to the world's most needed medical care & facilities, shelter, food, water, all the basics a needy body needs, mostly in the 3rd world where the need is the greatest. Bill Gates & his wife, Melinda, travel the world searching & personally ramrodding their programs.Warren Buffet has,
at his avanced age (he is being treated for cancer), continued to recruit other billionaries to join the
group. Because of Bill Gates, millions of jobs have been created. i grew up in the 1930's, as i believe you have, Elaine. Most of the libraries in the USA were paid for by one of the richest, Andrew Carnegie. As a youngster, i learned how to be a good citizen in the Boys Clubs of America. i attended
a summer camp because of the Kiwannis Club organization. i received food packages from church organizations. i celebrated Christmas at a "mission" party with a tableau of the manger with baby Jesus, singing & prayers, and a choice of an apple or orange. There was no formal church here, it was all organized and managed by 2 very rich elder ladies with little glasses perched on their noses. They arrived each time in a funny looking car that looked the same front & back, we always thought they
were angels because the car was silent running, only later did i discover it was electric, provided by
lead acid batteries. i was witness to many acts of aid & kindness for the unfortunate by those of the
well off. My father, being a professional electrician, led out in training the builers of many structures
& communications (telephones) in the CCC camps. This was prior to Social Security, food stamps, welfare etc. There were no 4 generation families on the dole, or malingerers. There were institutions
for the mentally challenged & sick. For years now many poor souls wander the cities, many are called
the homeless. Many share the needles & bottles, grown addicted, to drown their misery. We have grown cold to these beggars as we don't want to enable another trip to the boose shop.When you consider the cost of bureaucratic waste, yes, i believe the general public can do a better job. So remember, we can't see into a person's heart, God can. Lets not question anothers alms, yea or nay, as
many to not broadcast it, as suggested in the book.