Is libertarianism at odds with Christianity?

[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? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

...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