Christian Socialism
This question has always bugged me: why do conservative Christians often treat Capitalism and Adam Smith with as much respect as Christianity and Jesus? The invisible hand might as well be the Holy Spirit. Milton Friedman is the Billy Graham. It goes on and on…
I have had numerous conversations with very conservative Christians who advocate taking the Bible extremely literally. The individuals I’m thinking of won’t change a letter of what Paul wrote to churches concerning women, sex, or other things; however, when I ask them about helping the poor and “doing unto others” and “the least of these,” they completely check out of Christian mode. Instead, they put on their Republican hats and blast social programs that help millions and directly insult anyone who would be “lazy” enough to need Welfare/Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/etc. Are these really the same people? What is so great about Capitalism anyway? Who said it was a God-given right that we should all maximize our own selfish interests at the expense of others so we can rise to the top of the economic pile?
Instead, it seems much more reasonable to me that conservative Christians would prefer programs that lean toward the Socialist side of life. After all, Jesus didn’t seem to be much of a practitioner of Capitalism. He gave out handouts all the time and he blessed the poor instead of insulting them. He commanded his followers to share their wealth with the poor. Then in the first century, churches full of people sold property and laid it at the Apostles’ feet so that it could be redistributed to those who were in need. It all seems quite communal.
I know the line the Man taught you all to say since you were in grade school: “Communism may be nice in theory, but it will never work in real life.” I said that line myself many times before I questioned it. Wait a second, just because I’ve heard that from every single social studies teacher for 12 years doesn’t mean it’s completely true! Absolute Communism, taken to the extreme, yeah that probably wouldn’t work. The USSR worked for a while, but we won the Cold War. But absolute Capitalism cannot possibly work either. First of all, there is no such thing. There will always be restrictions, regulations, and other factors that mess up the pure essence of Capitalism. Anyway, just understand that I’m not advocating a Marxist revolution here. I’m just writing to maybe make you question the correlation between Christianity and fundamental political-economic values.
This is a testament as to why one cannot put his full faith into an institutionalized structure, known as the government. One should constantly take it upon himself to reach out to the poor and those in need. The topic of wealth and giving was one of Jesus’ major themes, found prolifically throughout the gospels.
With that said, let me emphasize that I agree with you David when you say we should advocate social programs which reach out to the poor and those in need. Social Liberalism, to me, is one of the most outreaching to the poor and those in less than affluent positions.
There a few major changes that I would like seen done in my lifetime that I feel would greatly benefit those in need:
Expand NAFTA to encompass all of North America. In doing so we should advocate North American reform programs that aim to diversity the Latino countries in order to transform them from single market banana republics to countries capable of achieving comparative advantage. I know this may be a bit off topic, seeing as it is non-domestic, but I feel that in order to socialize our own country we must also reach out and socialize our region — our hemisphere. This could potentially solve both our immigration issue and Latino countries’ poor economic standing.
Universal health care should be made a top priority — and is by Barack Obama — because it both embodies the spirit of a social union, which as a united union we should be, and reaches out to those who need the most basic needs.
A fierce progressive tax needs to be implemented. Do I really need to embellish this one? I know we’ve thrown this one around a lot — at least Kyle has. The rich should pay more tax, plain and simple. No massive, multi-billion dollar tax breaks.
I tell you, it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven.
If you want to follow Jesus, sell all of your possessions and give to the poor.
Can we not share our wealth? We are one of the richest countries per capita in the world. We call ourselves a Christian nation, maybe we ought to act like it?
Make note: I do not really believe we are a Christian nation. That last statement was added for dramatic effect.
You’re right David. The hypocrisy shown by those who want prayer in public schools and the ten commandments on every public building seems to show that they have completely missed Jesus’ message. And then they take the statement, “the poor you will always have with you” completely out of context and use it to oppose social programs.
Great topic….I was just discussing this matter with a colleague. I say get rid of NAFTA (no to CAFTA too) and build an institution much like what the EU has. Open the borders to promote greater economic balance and equality. Morover, use this system to create a greater standard of fairness which will (I hope) eliminate the exploitation of cheap labor. I like the regional approach.
“Social Liberalism, to me, is one of the most outreaching to the poor and those in less than affluent positions.”
I am a member of Democratic Socialists of America. We work to do much of this. Visit our page at
http://www.dsa.org
Let me make a revision to my initial reply. When I said that “we should advocate North American reform programs… [for] the Latino countries…” I meant Western Hemisphere reform programs. I should have said that I favor the abolishment of NAFTA to be supplanted by the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). This Carson, could be the first functionalist step towards a spillover chain reaction and a more unified Western Hemisphere — something comparable to the European Union.
I like your thinking Steve. They (not sure who) are going to lock both of us up.
What would the United State’s motivation be to join something like the FTAA? I am pretty much sold on it, personally, because I think it would be the best for the overall good of the hemisphere and because it would help so many people. But I question whether Americans would support such an unification that would seem to help others at their expense.
Interesting thoughts Steven. You should devote a full post to that. I remember us talking about this in a roundabout way when President Fox came to Harding.
To the immediate topic at hand, I think you are mischaracterizing a lot of conservative Christians. I know a lot of them, though not all, care a lot about giving to the poor. I myself believe giving to the poor is as rooted in nwe testament christianity as anything else. OVer and over do we find Paul talking about how anxious he was to give to the poor.
However, I don’t want it to be the government’s job to give to the poor.
In addition, a welfare system that gets too big has broad consequences. I believe it is wise for the government to have a level of welfare programs. My negative income tax that I advocated does just that. Iran is a great example of a horrible socialist economy. Ahmadinejad uses a lot of the arguments you who advocate socialism do. His term in office has been marked by very high inflation and rising unemployment. Neither of those strike me as good for the poor.
I do somewhat agree with you Chris when you say it shouldn’t be the government’s job to give to the poor. Conversely, I do believe it should be the governments job to provide for indigent citizens and those less than affluent, providing them with necessary commodities and the facilities they need to be properly educated.
To address you question David, I think that the US should advocate the FTAA on the grounds that in a globalizing world the economic-gap between highly developed countries are slowly disintegrating with IOs like the EU and rising super powers like China and India. I believe, in regards to longevity, the US will be better off spearheading the full integration of the Western Hemisphere in order to compete at the global level.
It’s interesting that you, along with millions of others whom I would label “conservative Christians,” would be so quick to take this role away from the government and give the choice back to the individual people. Aren’t you the same folks who riot outside the Supreme Court building trying to get the government to act on what you consider to be moral issues? I think poverty is a much more relevant “moral issue” than any that are currently labeled as such.
Your attempt to equalize socialistic principles with economies like that of Iran are extremely transparent. I could close my eyes and pick out one of a hundred different capitalistic economies in the world (that suck) and use it as a straw man argument against capitalistic ideals. I would hope that you wouldn’t let me get away with that.
As far as having a welfare state that gets too far out of hand, yes I agree. That’s probably not a good thing. But surely you don’t think that we are anywhere near that right now, do you? Our total percent of unemployment is 4.5%, which is almost as low as mathmatically possible.
Your negative income tax fails on two major issues: it doesn’t give enough welfare to those who really need it (people who are in between jobs or disabled or handicapped), and it gives that same amount of money to others who absolutely do not need it. The status quo is infinitely better because it does a pretty good job of putting the money where it is needed.
I’m surprised nobody has responded about the first century church communism…
David: The first century church’s “communism” was in the private sector which is completely different that the public sector doing it.
Regarding the government’s intervention on moral issues: I don’t want the government to intervene in abortion because I want the government to intervene in moral issues. I want them to intervene because I feel it is killing people. Its the same as me wanting the government to enforce laws against murder. You made it sound like a contradiction but I don’t believe it is. Being that I equate abortion with murder, from my perspective, abortion is the more important issue.
Regarding Iran, I’ll concede to you on this one. You are right when you say that there are many capitalist countries that have bad economies.
Regarding the negative income tax: That is a good point about disabled people. Perhaps a seperate account would need to be made for them. I honestly didn’t take them into account. For people in between jobs, I think its a good thing that its not “enough.” If it was where would the motivation to get a job be? I also disagree that that welfare is doing a good job of getting money to the people that need it. That’s the whole point of the negative income tax. The money paid in taxes are not getting to the people that need it. They are getting swallowed up in bureaucracy. The negative income tax eliminates the need for that huge bureaucracy.
Chris, you also weant the government to intervene to enforce prayer in public school. You don’t want the government to recognize homosexual marriage, and abortion is a religious issue. Your religion tells you that a fetus is a human being. Other people’s religions do not tell them that and it is therefore not immoral for them. You are trying to use the government to enforce your religious views on others. Isn’t it more important to help the poor, and I mean really help the poor, not take away the vast amount of assistance they need and give them 10,000 and say we’re even? The government pays for dialysis for all people in renal failure because dialysis costs 200,000 a session. You need it every daay to continue living. 10,000 doesn’t cut it. Jesus told you to help the poor and the government is a great way to do so, so why do you cling to capitalism?
Kyle, you’re being ridiculous. Never one time did I say I wanted the government to enforce public prayer in school. Not only have I never said that but I don’t think that. You are showing a pattern of attributing views to me that I don’t have.
And don’t tell me why I think abortion is murder. Its not like one day in church someone sat me down in a chair and told me that. There are lots of non-religious people that think the same way. The second I even learned what an abortion was I came to that conclusion. No one had to tell me that.
Personal vendetta? I’ll have to come to Chris’s defense on this one. Chris doesn’t believe that prayer should be enforced in school, that is a bit of a unwarranted conclusion on your behalf, Kyle.
There are also many people who equate abortion to murder (points at self). It is a grotesque and irresponsible procedure. To say that a fetus isn’t a living human being is ridiculous. In God’s kingdom a fetus/living being can only become one thing in the end — a human being.
Rite, we don’t want to go down that road…
Ok sorry guys that it has taken me so long to post. I do not have internet in my apartment right now, so I have to go to school to get online.
Well I am not going to advocate any position on this matter, I just want to point out some apparent contradictions. It seems as though both sides of the aisle contradict themselves. Republicans want to be able to legislate morality, but they do not want to force social programs on the public (also legislating morality). However, Democrats do not want to legislate morality (they believe in a strict separation of church and state), and yet they want to force social programs on the public (an example of legislating morality). You all have pointed out many times where Jesus said that we should give to the poor, and examples of Paul doing the same. Let me tell you that I completely agree that we as Christians should. However, to force that ideal on the rest of the public through government would appear as legislating morality. It seems that both sides of the aisle need to sit down and realize their contradictory stances on issues and come to a consistent philosophy for the relationship between morality and government. One cannot expect the other side to not legislate morality, and yet want to legislate morality in this case. Likewise, one cannot expect to be able to legislate morality and then not want to legislate it in this case. All sides of the debate need to be a little more consistent with their beliefs.
Why should we expect the government of the people to help the poor in any meaningful way if the majority of Christians don’t help the poor in any meaningful way? The fact that faith based programs need government money is an indictment on US Christendom. If a group supposedly led by the holy spirit generally ignores the poor, then I have no faith in the government. Of course, maybe I should rethink that led by the holy spirit idea.
Chris, I heard you speak out in favor of prayer in public school in State and Local government last spring when either the circuit court judge or the JP came to speak in our class. Those of you who aere anti-choice hold that because of your personal moral beliefs, beliefs that some people don’t share and should not be forced to share.
I feel that the downtrooden and oppressed in society should be helped by the government. A responsible government looks after its most unfortunate citizens, not the richest anbd wealthiest among them. This is not a religious view on my part, as I am very areligious, but a view based on a socialist worldview. Every person is entitled to a basic standard of living simply because they are a human being. Some people may abuse the system, but that is not a sufficient reason to abandon the system.
I find it amazing that I would have ever said that. Certainly I believe people should be able to pray in school. I absolutely don’t want a school-led prayer though. I am sure that was what I was talking about. I don’t remember the conversation at all though.
If I did say what you said I did and meant it to say I believed in school-led prayer, then let it be known I don’t think that way now.
I agree somewhat with what Kyle is saying. When I advocate governmental programs (as I often do) I never use religious arguments to back them up. I don’t think “legislating morality” is possible, because morality is more than action. I also don’t think “legislating morality” is advisable, because everyone has a different schema of what is moral and immoral.
Instead, I look to a-religious ideals to apply to our government. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. I think that is a good one to start with. Mix in a little bit of democratic majority rule with minority rights. Add some socialist principles (a la Kyle) that mandate a basic level of living that should be provided. All of this revolves around John Locke’s social contract.
See? There are plenty of nonreligious ways of deciding what the government should do and why. This post was not originally meant to say that Christians should rise up and overthrow capitalism and institute a divinely-inspired and commanded world socialist order. Far from that. I was merely pointing out a massive conflict that I see in the right wing. I can point out their conflict without adopting their arguments I hope.
One can use those arguments as being “moral” in nature because of the lack of a universal definition for morality as Kyle has pointed out. One can say that the natural order of things would be less “religious” than government intervention (allowing the market and society to be free and to not incorporate socialist agendas). The fact that you continue to point out John Locke’s Social Contract is a religion. You hold his writings to be almost sacred, and those who believe in the same philosophy are his followers. The problem is not whether we are legislating morality or not, it is what we are using as the basis for our morality. One may use the Bible, and another may use the Social Contract. Neither should be held any higher than the other in the eyes of the government, because then that would be a clear violation of the separation of “church” and state. Many attribute religion as having a god or a way of worship, but religion can be any form of dedication to a certain ideal or set of ideals. I would disagree with you in saying that you look to a-religious ideals in running government. I believe that your ideas are just as much religious as those professed by anti-abortionists. I do not expect you to agree with me, because you are a staunch believer of the wall of separation. However, I wanted to point out that you, along with many others, believe that your agenda is not religious in nature when it actually is. Like I said, I am not trying to convince you that you are legislating morality, for I feel that all legislation is morality-based, but to just point out some inconsistencies on both sides of the aisle.
Also, Kyle, I would ask what basic standard of living you are referring to. On top of that, who has decided this “basic standard of living”? Would it not be religious in nature to provide a certain “basic standard of living”, when all may not agree on what that standard is? Isn’t that the basis behind your argument against abortion?
Yes, I suppose that if you define religion broadly enough, you can encompass pretty much anything under that definition that you want to. The question becomes: is that helpful to the discussion?
Furthermore, even if we would put all legislation under some nebulous influence of religion, what does that mean? I think it is far better to avoid overt religious (or morally specific to one religion) claims when discussing public policy. I don’t think what the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, or anything else have to say should have any direct bearing on what laws we pass. I am really flummoxed by the sheer numbers of people who are looking to bring back theocracy. Instead, we should look to the commonalities that essentially all people can agree on. Whether they should be defined as “moral” or not is really quite irrelevant. Basic human rights fall under this catagory, as do many other broad beliefs. Interjecting a specific religion really just doesn’t help the policy-making process.
I think that everyone can agree that living under an overpass or in a slum should not be acceptable in a developed society. Everyone can agree that good health shouldn’t be the domain of only those that can afford it. Why is that so hard to agree on in this country? The rest of the developed world has already agreed that it is in the common good for all people to have a minimum standard of living, call it religious if you want, but I am an ateist at this point.
First of all, let me say that I am not pushing for a theocracy, I was just pointing out that it would not be right to call one side a theocracy when they use the Bible, and then consider yourself to not be advocating a theocracy when you want politicians to govern using the Social Contract as the standard. To atheists and non-believers, the Bible is just a book written by a bunch of people with no other special thing about it. That is exactly how the Social Contract is viewed as well, so what is the difference between the two. If one holds one to be higher than the other, then he is supporting a theocracy using whatever that book may be as the standard. I think that we can all agree that that would be wrong. Therefore, like I said in my last post, we would not want something like that because it would be a theocracy, a clear violation of the wall of separation. Therefore we cannot hold the Social Contract to be of greater importance in determining how we govern, we must hold it equal with all other doctrines that people may use to govern their lives.
I think that we all do agree that human rights should be guaranteed, however we all do not agree on what exactly is covered under human rights. It is not that this is not helpful to the discussion, to point out that everything that we decide to do is religious in one way or another, because the same argument could have been made when talking about the abortion issue. The problem is that we are all not being consistent here. We want to take the ideas of some, perhaps even most, of America (universal health care and other similar social programs) and force them upon the entire population (because we will all have to pay for it whether we agree with it or not). Is it just, according to your logic in arguing against abortion, to force anything like this upon all of America when not all of America may agree with it. That is my only reason for continuing this and bringing up all of these things. Like I said from the beginning, I am not supporting one side or another on this issue, I am just pointing out inconsistencies on both sides. Why should all of America be forced to pay for universal healthcare, and yet abortion still be allowed? One has to be consistent on how it views the way that government legislation should affect the public. If you think so highly of how Europe is handling its society, then maybe you can also look at the problems that they are facing, that we are not right now (i.e. France and the riots that they had last year due to massive unemployment). I am pleading only to be consistent in how you, and everyone on both sides of the aisle, push for certain reforms.
You have to pay for things you don’t like. David has to pay to keep up research into new WMDs, something he hates. I have to pay for abstinence only sex-education, something I despise. We ALL have to pay for the Iraq War, something more than 2/3s of Americans loathe. You don’t pick and choose what laws you get to support.
On the issue of the social contract. It is not a religion. I do not hold it to be divinely inspired. I don’t like a lot of what Locke did, especially trying to establish an aristocratic society in the Carolinas or his approval of slavery. The social contract is a theory in political science that has been bandied about and revised as recently as the last half-century by John Rawles. There is a stronger argument to be made that America is based on Lockean ideas than on a “Judeo-Chrisitan ethic.” And since the social contract doesn’t require god, only men, in order to function, you can’t really call it a theocracy. Plus, the social contract ais democracy. If it is wrong to base a system of government on democracy because it might be a religion is an absurd interpretation of this argument.
I figured that you, Kyle, would not accept this argument. I figured that you would defend your inconsistency to the death. That is fine, and I am okay with you doing that. We have the choice to accept what we want (even if it is not what we want to hear). It is your decision to choose what you want to believe, even if it may be inconsistent with other things that you believe. I am done with this post, because there is obviously nothing more that will convince you of your inconsistency, so I will leave it at this (your own words):
“I agree with you on this and the reason is found in my belief in the marketplace of ideas. In order for the MofI to function as envisioned by John Stuart Mill, all ideas have to be allowed in. To arrive at truth, all ideas are measured and the good ones float to the top.”