Is libertarianism at odds with Christianity?

[coffeecrazy1]

I am a libertarian. I am also a Christian. I read the following in the Dallas Morning News Letters today:

I am outraged at the hypocrisy of the Christian right. Christmas is about doing good things for others and remembering and caring for those in our society who have less. Who did Christ first witness to in his mission on earth? The rich? No. It was the poor, the outcasts and unwanted in society.

Is the Christian right concerned about those people in our society? Obviously not, according to their stand on affordable health care for all Americans, education and Social Security. This is what Christ would have been preaching about if he came today, not whether retailers and Christmas cards say "Happy holidays."

Have we embraced and cared for those in our society who can't speak for themselves? Health care, education, affordable housing and decent wages – these are the moral, social issues of our time that will show Christ that we have kept his name in Christmas.

Now...I find myself at a bit of a juxtaposition. I don't agree with the leftist bent of the letter. I think it's pretty much boiler-plate liberaltalk. But, it made me wonder: would Christ, if He were walking around today, be a liberal? Would He really support social programs, caring for the poor, national healthcare, etc.?

To take it a step further, is my campaigning against these things at odds with my faith? I am not a member of the Christian right by any means, so I don't have the "balancing" notions of protecting morality and decency(like the Parents Television Council crowd, or Jerry Falwell). So, am I acting against my creed in standing up for reduced aid to the poor, privatization of healthcare, and the abolition of welfare and Social Security?

I apologize if this is shading into the philosophy forum area, but I trust you guys for even-keeled responses more than those folks... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But, it made me wonder: would Christ, if He were walking around today, be a liberal? Would He really support social programs, caring for the poor, national healthcare, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think He would.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

would Christ, if He were walking around today, be a liberal? Would He really support social programs, caring for the poor, national healthcare, etc.?


As a non-religious libertarian who has studied religion, while its easy for me to make a flip remark equating Jesus' message as socialism, I don't necessarily think that the concept of "Christian Charity" presupposes government involvement.

I think you can be in favor of helping the less fortunate and still be opposed to the government forcing everyone to do so.

I see no contradiction.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a libertarian. I am also a Christian. I read the following in the Dallas Morning News Letters today:

I am outraged at the hypocrisy of the Christian right. Christmas is about doing good things for others and remembering and caring for those in our society who have less. Who did Christ first witness to in his mission on earth? The rich? No. It was the poor, the outcasts and unwanted in society.

Is the Christian right concerned about those people in our society? Obviously not, according to their stand on affordable health care for all Americans, education and Social Security. This is what Christ would have been preaching about if he came today, not whether retailers and Christmas cards say "Happy holidays."

Have we embraced and cared for those in our society who can't speak for themselves? Health care, education, affordable housing and decent wages – these are the moral, social issues of our time that will show Christ that we have kept his name in Christmas.

Now...I find myself at a bit of a juxtaposition. I don't agree with the leftist bent of the letter. I think it's pretty much boiler-plate liberaltalk. But, it made me wonder: would Christ, if He were walking around today, be a liberal? Would He really support social programs, caring for the poor, national healthcare, etc.?

To take it a step further, is my campaigning against these things at odds with my faith? I am not a member of the Christian right by any means, so I don't have the "balancing" notions of protecting morality and decency(like the Parents Television Council crowd, or Jerry Falwell). So, am I acting against my creed in standing up for reduced aid to the poor, privatization of healthcare, and the abolition of welfare and Social Security?

I apologize if this is shading into the philosophy forum area, but I trust you guys for even-keeled responses more than those folks... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

An article that may help explain why organized religion competes with the welfare state (http://www.wz-berlin.de/publikation/pdf/wm105/s7-10.pdf#search='World%20Values%20Surveys%20religion %20insecurity')

I'll attempt to summarize as succinctly as possible:

1) economic insecurity/life unpredictability = robust and widespread appeal of organized/traditional religion
2) the welfare state attempts to curb economic insecurity/life unpredictability – that is, the welfare state (inadvertently and indirectly) secularizes modern society
3) ergo, the welfare state weakens the influence of religious institutions -- in some way placing organized religion in direct competition with the modern welfare state...and hence why organized religions like Christianity and polticial philosophies like libertarianism share similar ends and interests, and are therefore not incongruent.

However, as the article also mentions: rigid, predictable rules are an almost universal characteristic of all organized religions, which may explain why there is some inherent conflict between libertarians and religions like Christianity -- a conflict you seem to have an intuitive sense of.

In other words, as you note: there are some ways in which libertarianism (that is, more correctly, an anti-welfare state position) is entirely consistent with the interests of Christianity; yet in other ways, libertarianism lies in conflict with the unyielding ethical paradigms of most organized and traditional religions.

I'm sure I wasn't particularly clear here, but it's the best I could do while 4-tabling/trying to buy last-minute Christmas gifts online; but I hope I was able to capture why you might feel conflicted about being both a libertarian and a Christian, as there seems to be some amount of empirical evidence that validates the notion that the modern welfare state (seemingly anathama to libertarians) conflicts with organized religion.

---------------------------------------------

For those curious about the methodology behind the survey results cited in the article (http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/index.html)

[MMMMMM]

Jesus advocated giving to the poor, but Jesus did not advocate forcing others to give to the poor.

Jesus told the rich man what he could do if he truly wanted to follow him. When instead the rich man walked away (rather than give all his treasures to the poor), Jesus let him.

From this, it appears that Jesus regarded the giving of charity as something each person is to decide for himself.

[peritonlogon]

Let's not confuse Jesus with Christianity.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not confuse Jesus with Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. zing

Lets say all welfare programs were ended with the idea that Christian Churches would pick up the slack.

Would non-Christians be eligible for foodstamps and other aid?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say all welfare programs were ended with the idea that Christian Churches would pick up the slack.

Would non-Christians be eligible for foodstamps and other aid?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're directing this question at me...

How the hell should I know? /images/graemlins/wink.gif




...but seriously, who could answer this?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say all welfare programs were ended with the idea that Christian Churches would pick up the slack.

Would non-Christians be eligible for foodstamps and other aid?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're directing this question at me...

How the hell should I know? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

...but seriously, who could answer this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I direct it at anyone who wants to read peoples thoughts.

My point is all the wonderful christian aid that third world contries recieve comes with a religious lecture and a bible. Not to disparage anyone's future saints, but Mother Teresa actually encouraged poverty in the places she worked. (dont make me look it up, i dont have enough time today)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Mother Teresa actually encouraged poverty in the places she worked.

<yawn> now tell me something I don't know.

[Peter666]

If Christ as Man was hypothetically living on the Earth today, He would be a monarch and things would be structured a lot like Medieval Europe but with no wars and flush toilets.

[lehighguy]

From an economics point of view we should support capitalism because it provides the best possible outcome for all of society. In other words, one should oppose welfare programs because they destroy value, slow growth, and hurt the very people they are trying to help.

I have no fundamental problem with government services and wealth redistribution. I don't take a moral stand on those issues like say PVN does. I believe they are bad policy because they have been proven wrong in thoery and practice. It is not a moral question of weighing one thing against another, these policies are simply bad. They cause more problems then they solve.

Do I disagree with private charity, no. I think it is a far more effective medium. We would do much better to return tax dollars to the public and let them use thier own conscious in determining what to give. Charity at gunpoint is not charity.

As for social matters, I think it is still possible to be a fundie christian and a libraterian. You simply need to acknowledge that moral matters should be taken out of the hands of government. It doesn't require you give up your believes, it just requires you settle them as an individual in the public square rather then as a voter.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
From an economics point of view we should support capitalism because it provides the best possible outcome for all of society. In other words, one should oppose welfare programs because they destroy value, slow growth, and hurt the very people they are trying to help.

I have no fundamental problem with government services and wealth redistribution. I don't take a moral stand on those issues like say PVN does. I believe they are bad policy because they have been proven wrong in thoery and practice. It is not a moral question of weighing one thing against another, these policies are simply bad. They cause more problems then they solve.

Do I disagree with private charity, no. I think it is a far more effective medium. We would do much better to return tax dollars to the public and let them use thier own conscious in determining what to give. Charity at gunpoint is not charity.

As for social matters, I think it is still possible to be a fundie christian and a libraterian. You simply need to acknowledge that moral matters should be taken out of the hands of government. It doesn't require you give up your believes, it just requires you settle them as an individual in the public square rather then as a voter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty good, it is actually more simple than people are making it out to be. Libertarians have no problem with people determining their own morality (whether it be Christianity or whatever), so long as they don't impose those morals on others forcefully. Examples of this in modern America are laws against pornography and gambling.

[Jdanz]

WARNING HIJACK,

hey lehigh do you think the capitalist system works long term with no wealth distribution? Since you're taking a practical and not a moral stand, do you thing (right or wrong) that as the gap between the rich and the poor grows the poor demand some kind of redistribution, and get it even if the gap continues to grow?

I can make this clearer if need be.

[lehighguy]

I got it up until your last comma, then it seemed contradictory?

[QuadsOverQuads]

If we're going to talk about this issue, we should also talk about Jesus' teachings on taxation.

Jesus was emphatically NOT against taxation -- even paying taxes to the brutal Roman government that ultimately crucified him and persecuted his followers.

Think about that.

His central teaching was "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's".

The question of the "temple tax" also was raised to him, and he answered that it should be paid, and if one could not pay it then God would even provide the means to pay it.

The Libertarian Party / laissez-faire talking-point that "Jesus wanted no tax-supported services" is simply wrong. There is NO evidence for this view ANYWHERE in Jesus teachings.

In fact, the only way they can try to sell this view is by equating taxation with theft, which is a view Jesus explicitly did not support.

Anyway, good topic. Hope this provides some good fodder for this discussion.


q/q

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say all welfare programs were ended with the idea that Christian Churches would pick up the slack.

Would non-Christians be eligible for foodstamps and other aid?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're directing this question at me...

How the hell should I know? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

...but seriously, who could answer this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I direct it at anyone who wants to read peoples thoughts.

My point is all the wonderful christian aid that third world contries recieve comes with a religious lecture and a bible. Not to disparage anyone's future saints, but Mother Teresa actually encouraged poverty in the places she worked. (dont make me look it up, i dont have enough time today)

[/ QUOTE ]

Better a religious lecture and a Bible than dead. Like it or not, Christians are the ones doing the work and risking their very lives in many of the most dangerous areas in the world. Christian missionary groups are the ones running an underground railroad in China to get North Korean refugees smuggled safely into South Korea, which doesn't give a damn about them.

The soup kitchen I support is Christian oriented. It is laughable to suggest they would turn away the hungry if they were not of the same faith, as is your previous assertion charities run by Christians would slam the door on non-Christians should private charity replace public largesse. What is there to worry about anyway? Certainly athiest charities would spring forth to help the unbelieving? How likely would they be to grant favor on a needy family of evangelicals?

Lastly, your pot-shot at Mother Theresa was unecessary. Indians had certainly figured out how to propagate the species before she arrived and the focal point of her work was to comfort those already suffering and dying in the streets (thus not much of a risk to pop out some more "untouchables"). There certainly wasn't anyone else, religious or secular in Calcutta at the time willing to do that work.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you can be in favor of helping the less fortunate and still be opposed to the government forcing everyone to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding!

Someone else brought up the "render unto ceasar what is ceasar's" quote. I'm no biblical scholar, but couldn't this also be taken to mean that Christians should do their ministry and let government do government stuff?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you can be in favor of helping the less fortunate and still be opposed to the government forcing everyone to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding!

Someone else brought up the "render unto ceasar what is ceasar's" quote. I'm no biblical scholar, but couldn't this also be taken to mean that Christians should do their ministry and let government do government stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Interpret" it all you like, Jesus said what he said.

Just because it's politically inconvenient for you doesn't change its meaning or give you the authority to rewrite it to better suit your own political agenda.

I watch people on the right wing do this all the time, though. They claim to be "Christians" -- literally "followers of Christ" -- but whereever Jesus said something that they don't want to submit to, they just "interpret" it to mean whatever their personal politics demands of them.

I find it fascinating that such people still think of themselves as "Christians", since it's clear that when they have to choose between Jesus' actual teachings and their own predispositions, their own predispositions take precedence every time.


q/q

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because it's politically inconvenient for you doesn't change its meaning or give you the authority to rewrite it to better suit your own political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pay your taxes, effectively. Hey, I pay mine.

I don't see where Jesus said "force others to pay taxes."

He said "do unto others as you would have done to you." I don't know many people that like being forced to do things. I certainly don't. But I do know lots of people (including myself) that like being helped. Therefore, I should help others, but not force other people to do things they don't want to do.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

If we're going to talk about this issue, we should also talk about Jesus' teachings on taxation.

Jesus was emphatically NOT against taxation -- even paying taxes to the brutal Roman government that ultimately crucified him and persecuted his followers.

Think about that.

His central teaching was "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's".

[/ QUOTE ]


The context here is key: the Pharisees sought to trick Jesus into publicly denying the authority of Rome. They knew Jesus put the authority of God first and foremost, and above the authority of Caesar. So, they sent a lawyer-type to inveigle Jesus into making a statement for which they could have him arrested and executed. Jesus, however, perceived the attempted trickery and answered wisely, segregating in his reply the things of God from the things of Caesar, so that he did not thereby deny the authority of Caesar. When the Sadducee asked Jesus if it was lawful for Jews to pay tax to Caesar (the Jews considered God, not Caesar, to be their Lord), Jesus asked the Sadducee to hold up a coin, and asked him, whose likeness is on that coin? The Sadducee answered, "Caesar's", whereupon Jesus replied, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

So Jesus' statement may be taken more as a declaration of the compartmentalization of two distinct realms, than as an outright endorsement of taxation or tribute.

For a much more detailed explanation of this, from a religious scholar and true believer's perspective, here is a link I found:

http://www.hiscovenantministries.org/scripture/romans_2.htm

[lehighguy]

Thank you.

[QuadsOverQuads]

So, M, just to be clear : the entire lesson you glean from this passage is that Jesus knew how to engage in tricky wordplay? No example of his philosophy? No guidance for his followers? Just clever verbal gamesmanship?

I rest my case.

You are not interested in hearing Jesus' teachings, let alone following them.


q/q

Please excuse my .02 dropping in here, but that's not the way I read 6M's post. I thought it was quite clear and, as a Christian, expressed my own personal understanding of the story.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
So, M, just to be clear : the entire lesson you glean from this passage is that Jesus knew how to engage in tricky wordplay? No example of his philosophy? No guidance for his followers? Just clever verbal gamesmanship?

I rest my case.

You are not interested in hearing Jesus' teachings, let alone following them.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, the notion that M described, that politics and religion occupy two distinct realms, is actually one of the most important developments in the history of religion, not "clever verbal gamesmanship."

[lehighguy]

Don't argue with Quads, he's the freakin pope. With final authority over biblical interpretation.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So, M, just to be clear : the entire lesson you glean from this passage is that Jesus knew how to engage in tricky wordplay? No example of his philosophy? No guidance for his followers? Just clever verbal gamesmanship?

I rest my case.

You are not interested in hearing Jesus' teachings, let alone following them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this thought hasn't crossed your mind but maybe it should. Perhaps you're the one trying to use Jesus' teachings to suit your personal agenda?
Source (http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/renderuntoc2.html)
[ QUOTE ]
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s


Keep politics separate from certain other fields, such as religion. This is part of a saying of Jesus in the Gospels; the full version is “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

So, M, just to be clear : the entire lesson you glean from this passage is that Jesus knew how to engage in tricky wordplay? No example of his philosophy? No guidance for his followers? Just clever verbal gamesmanship?

I rest my case.

You are not interested in hearing Jesus' teachings, let alone following them.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]


q/q, begging your pardon, but I'm afraid you really do not know what you are talking about here.

Jesus was saying that the things of Caesar belong to Caesar, and the things of God belong to God--and that mankind should respect that distinction and render all things in their appropriate places.

Jesus was not condemning taxation, nor was he endorsing it: rather, he rhetorically asked if coin was in the realm of Caesar, and stated that the things of Caesar's should be rendered unto him.

One might also suggest he was implying several things:

1) that Jesus himself would not resist taxation or tribute to Caesar

2) that money and taxation are not of God's realm, but are rather of the worldly realm.

I would gently suggest that you do a bit more reading on this before being so certain of your interpretation. I have read in numerous places of this matter, and all readings point to an explanation rather similar to what I am describing to you, rather than your interpretation. Also, if you simply take HIS words literally, there is no direct mention of taxation. The Sadducee is the one who mentioned taxation: Jesus only stated that the things of Caesar should be rendered to Caesar.

You are also taking Jesus' words out of context, and moreover you are taking them as an explicit endorsement or advocation of taxation or tribute, which is not accurate. Rather, Jesus was emphasizing the difference between the wordly and the spiritual, and saying: to each belongs, and and should go, its own.

This is a lot deeper concept than merely being wordplay. Actually, it goes even deeper than what is described above (in the much larger spiritual sense), but that aspect is not really germane to this discussion.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, M, just to be clear : the entire lesson you glean from this passage is that Jesus knew how to engage in tricky wordplay? No example of his philosophy? No guidance for his followers? Just clever verbal gamesmanship?

I rest my case.

You are not interested in hearing Jesus' teachings, let alone following them.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]


q/q, begging your pardon, but I'm afraid you really do not know what you are talking about here.

Jesus was saying that the things of Caesar belong to Caesar, and the things of God belong to God--and that mankind should respect that distinction and render all things in their appropriate places.

Jesus was not condemning taxation, nor was he endorsing it: rather, he rhetorically asked if coin was in the realm of Caesar, and stated that the things of Caesar's should be rendered unto him.

One might also suggest he was implying several things:

1) that Jesus himself would not resist taxation or tribute to Caesar

2) that money and taxation are not of God's realm, but are rather of the worldly realm.

I would gently suggest that you do a bit more reading on this before being so certain of your interpretation. I have read in numerous places of this matter, and all readings point to an explanation rather similar to what I am describing to you, rather than your interpretation. Also, if you simply take HIS words literally, there is no direct mention of taxation. The Sadducee is the one who mentioned taxation: Jesus only stated that the things of Caesar should be rendered to Caesar.

You are also taking Jesus' words out of context, and moreover you are taking them as an explicit endorsement or advocation of taxation or tribute, which is not accurate. Rather, Jesus was emphasizing the difference between the wordly and the spiritual, and saying: to each belongs, and and should go, its own.

This is a lot deeper concept than merely being wordplay. Actually, it goes even deeper than what is described above (in the much larger spiritual sense), but that aspect is not really germane to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clearly a church and state issue. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SheetWise]

Jesus often told a story ... (http://www.gardenofpraise.com/bibl52s.htm)

"... The master took his one talent away from him and gave it to the man who had ten talents, and the one talent man was punished because he had not properly used the talent he had been given."

If only government was as discriminating.

[Lash]

“So, am I acting against my creed in standing up for reduced aid to the poor, privatization of healthcare, and the abolition of welfare and Social Security?”

You are not. Healthcare / Welfare / Social Security are issues that are all about a means to an end. A stance one way or another on any of these issues has nothing to do with your personal relationship with your God. Does “God” want us to debate social issues or not?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]


Is the Christian right concerned about those people in our society? Obviously not, according to their stand on affordable health care for all Americans, education and Social Security.


[/ QUOTE ]

This poor fool is making the common error that if you don't support a certain program it must mean that you don't support the stated goals of that program. It's the same thing as accusing those who oppose the PATRIOT act with "why do they hate America?".


[ QUOTE ]
would Christ, if He were walking around today, be a liberal? Would He really support social programs, caring for the poor, national healthcare, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a chance. You see, he would have godlike intelligence and therefore he could easily understand basic economics.

natedogg

[sweetjazz]

coffee, the role between Church and State is a major problem throughout Western history. To some extent, your question touches on this.

I do think that it is clear that God expects Christians, once they have entered a relationship with Him that is based on his love and grace, to try to bring his Kingdom to Earth, and one of the ways to do so is to help the poor. That will likely involve sacrifices, and those sacrifices may come in a variety of fashions. It must even be considered whether one should support legislation that would help alleviate poverty, even though it would cause greater discomfort to that invdividual. Of course, other considerations also have to take place, such as the rights and welfare of all others affected by the legislation.

I don't think that Jesus is very clear in how he thinks people should try to alleviate poverty and most of his examples are of individuals helping other individuals. Of course, in the context of his times, this is how Jewish society functioned. The idea of the modern welfare state was not even in the discussion. So it seems to me that the duty of a Christian is to prayerfully reflect on the presence of poverty in the world, and seek God's guidance in doing what you think is best to reach out to those in need.

I suspect that God is more concerned that people are sincerely trying to do His will (which often involves going beyond our own natural prejudices -- be they our political philosophy or otherwise) than he does for what particular course of action we end up choosing. One suspects that those who truly accept the teachings of Jesus will find a way to do much more good than harm, no matter how they go about it.

Just my $0.02.

[Borodog]

One of the reasons that I admire the "teachings" of Jesus Christ (I put "teachings" in quotes not to mock them but because I'm not even sure the guy ever actually existed or said what is attributed to him; I am not a Christian nor a theist) is that they are fundamentally libertarian.

Some thoughts from my wife (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rachelmills/) on the subject (more or less), who is both a libertarian and a Christian:

Politics and My Religion
Rachel Mills - September, 2004

"Never in our history has it been more imperative that Christians bring their values and beliefs to bear upon the world around them by embracing the privilege and responsibility of voting." - Dr. James Dobson

". . . to BEAR upon the world around them, by voting???" I want to throw something. I strongly suspect this man has heady designs on political power at some point. I firmly believe being a Sunday School teacher is a higher calling than town council, or even Congress.

Why? Because Christianity seeks to replicate itself in others as a moral code (partially) as one of its highest callings. In other words, convert others. Prosyletise. The Christian Right has their panties all in a wad about gay marriage and abortion. We must have laws protecting marriage! We must have laws saving the unborn! How did Jesus deal with parallel situations?

He saw the prostitute about to be stoned for adultery and He went straight to the Pharisees and said "We MUST have stronger laws against fornication! We must cure our society of this dispicable disease of lust! Whom amongst you is righteous enough to lead us to a more just society where my Father's moral code is strictly enforced, thereby making our land more pleasing to God?"

Wait... He didn't? But that's what James Dobson is doing. That's what my local Christian Coalition groupies are trying to do. (See Nathan Tabor.)

No no no no no. These men are not reading their Bible. If they are, how could they deal with the cognitive dissonance created by Jesus NOT doing that and instead TALKING down the angry self-righteous mob, getting in front of the stones, having guts, having mercy, showing love. Did you see "The Passion"? That was the moment I completetly lost it, because that is the Jesus that I know, from my personal experience.

My Jesus doesn't lobby. My Jesus loves.

My Jesus knows collective force is not success. Hearts, one at a time, are the prize. And since actions follow, hearts are the priority. Laws are irrelevant.

The problem is, this is where all the hard work is. One heart at a time is hard work. We have 290 million of those in this country alone. When you pare it down to 435 Congresspeople and 1 President, it starts looking like an easier bite to chew. But this is a faithless vision, where the mustard seeds merely irritate.

Christians! Your faith is better expressed at a Crisis Pregnancy Center and through paying attention to those around you, than at the ballot box if you really care about stopping abortion. Reach out through genuine love (not judgement) if you really believe. If you want to improve your society, you must hold hands, not sticks. You must be there every step of the way to help your brother lead a better life, and only when they see the stones coming might they accept your help, but you have to be there. Find a way. Get your nose out of the stupid NY Times or the Post, or James Dobson's little rally and find the time to ACTUALLY HELP someone who needs it, instead of putting on some show with the fellow pious.

I'm not saying don't vote. Voting is good. Moral politicians are good. But laws don't equal morality. Keep the law in perspective. It has a role not to be overestimated. The role of the Christian is higher than the law. Don't think that because you vote is has the remotest thing to do with being a good Christian. It's like saying because you watch "Friends", you're a good friend. It's simply not relevant. The realms are different. Not tangibly related.

True Christians express their faith through how they live, not how they vote. Voting takes fifteen minutes, Jesus wants your whole life.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
It must even be considered whether one should support legislation that would help alleviate poverty, even though it would cause greater discomfort to that invdividual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember that even if legislation is intended to alleviate povery, that doesn't mean that it will. Just because a politician stands up and calls it the "Clean Air Act" or the "No Child Left Behind" act doesn't mean these things will achieve the goals they claim it will.

I just want to point this out because the whole thread is begging the question that policies which are purported to benefit the poor would be supported by those who want to help the poor. But that's just not the case.

And some of the policies that are the best for the poor are roundly criticized and opposed by those who think they are helping. Low capital gains tax is one of the best things you can do for the poor but it doesn't sounds as compassionate to say "Jesus supports a low capital gains tax rate" does it?

natedogg

[sweetjazz]

nate, your point is a good one. It is important to consider whether the proposed program would be accomplish what it purports to do.

I am not so sure about your capital gains tax point though. For people who are very poor, it would be much more beneficial to them (in the short term) to receive any other form of tax reduction other than capital gains tax reduction.

There is a long-term value in getting poor people with some ability to save to be able to make money from saving and to reduce the amount of that profit that the government takes. It's not clear to me, though, that this benefit is very significant compared to those of other policies.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
nate, your point is a good one. It is important to consider whether the proposed program would be accomplish what it purports to do.

I am not so sure about your capital gains tax point though. For people who are very poor, it would be much more beneficial to them (in the short term) to receive any other form of tax reduction other than capital gains tax reduction.

There is a long-term value in getting poor people with some ability to save to be able to make money from saving and to reduce the amount of that profit that the government takes. It's not clear to me, though, that this benefit is very significant compared to those of other policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main benefit to the poor from low capital gains taxes is not a reduction in their personal tax liability. (If you wanted to do that the best thing you could possibly do is eliminate social security).

But lowering capital gains taxes *is* one of the best policies for the poor, because low capital gains spurs the investment that creates jobs. A job is far, far more beneficial than any handout of any kind.

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think that it is clear that God expects Christians, once they have entered a relationship with Him that is based on his love and grace, to try to bring his Kingdom to Earth,...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may be a common misconception. Jesus did not encourage mankind to try to make the world like God's Kingdom; rather, he urged humans to shun the world with its wicked ways and to instead follow God. Jesus also said that his Father's kingdom *is not of this world*.


[ QUOTE ]
...and one of the ways to do so is to help the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus did not advocate helping the poor as a way of bringing God's kingdom to Earth, but rather, as a way of following Jesus. When the rich man asked Jesus what more he could do to truly be good, after he has learned the (religious) law and done good things, Jesus said he could give all that he has to the poor and come and follow him (at which the rich man, deeply troubled, quietly walked away).

Jesus also said, "Whatsoever ye have done to the least of my brethren(/children/creation), ye have done to me." So according to this, when you help the poor, you are helping Jesus (or God); when you treat another kindly, you are showing kindness to God; and conversely, when you give the cold shoulder to someone in genuine need, you give the cold shoulder to God.


[ QUOTE ]
One suspects that those who truly accept the teachings of Jesus will find a way to do much more good than harm, no matter how they go about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possibly so; although in my opinion, most Christians (including Catholics) do not really understand certain of the key teachings of Jesus. Also, some of Jesus' teachings, if understood, are hard to accept and even harder to put into practice.

[sweetjazz]

M^6...thanks for the nice thoughtful and insightful post. I think you are in correcting my statement about bringing God's Kingdom to earth, as there is clear evidence that this cannot literally be accomplished.

At the same time, there are scriptural remarks which can be interpreted as suggesting that there is some value in trying to bring God's Kingdom to earth, even though this cannot be literally accomplished. The Lord's Prayer is probably the most salient example: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven." It seems possible to interpret the latter phrase as only pertaining to the Lord's will and not his Kingdom, but that does not seem natural to me. But I am certainly no expert.

***

nate...thanks for clarifying your point about capital gains tax. I agree with you about the value of creating jobs and do think that lowering captial gains tax can be the best thing for society when certain economic conditions hold. I am a bit skeptical about your claim that lowering capital gains taxes always creates more jobs, or at least don't create enough to make them more valuable to the poor than other programs that would be equally expensive. (I use the economic defintion of cost here to mean the amount of revenue lost to the government due to the capital gains tax reduction.) But I am also no economics expert.

There are also issues of poverty that job creation doesn't address, namely the fact that people with low-wage jobs do struggle just to make ends meet (let alone provide resources for their children to be able to escape poverty).

But while I might disagree with you on specifics, I do agree that finding ways to increase availability of jobs is one way to try to tackle poverty, and in some circumstances, one of the best ways.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The Lord's Prayer is probably the most salient example: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven." It seems possible to interpret the latter phrase as only pertaining to the Lord's will and not his Kingdom, but that does not seem natural to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thy Kingdom come...on earth as it is in Heaven? That doesn't make sense. But "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven" makes perfect sense. I don't see how you can interpret that the other way.