Are capitalistic and conservative ideals sinful?

[Contarini]

Science hasnt told us what to say, no not yet. But it will When it becomes the established religeon. Al Gore has been trying for example to push “the Gaia theory” into the govornment mindset. So science has indeed become a new instrument or template for govornments and societies. One that will replace religeon. How would you like to live in a world where mercy, forgiveness, and love are replaced by more ‘logical’ ideas. Ones that have ‘proven’ more effective or that ‘statistics’ ‘prove’ more beneficial. I believe in a more personal and ‘Individual’ type world. A GOD based world.
Look at the push for defeating man made global warming (MMGW). The beginning of the end…

Well, I’m a Christian, so I believe in the Body of Christ, which is not an individualistic doctrine. Perhaps other forms of theism are compatible with individualism.

Also, I believe that God has called us to take care of nonhuman creation, and when the majority of scientists tell us that our behavior is seriously harming the natural order God made, I think that a “God-based” approach is to give this theory the benefit of the doubt and change our behavior.

The world of people who make an idol of capitalism is exactly the kind of world you describe, where mercy, forgiveness, and love are replaced by supposedly more “logical” ideas, proven effective by statistics. So I think you are fighting the wrong enemy. Or alternatively, you are only fighting one enemy when perhaps you should be fighting two. I’m certainly aware that environmentalism could be used to promote tyranny. But I think people fear this excessively and use it to reject legitimate proposals that are in full accord with natural law.

Edwin

 

[TEPO]

Would you admit that capitalism needs morals in order to promote human dignity?

Yes! Since capitalism is the type of govornment we use then I think the govornment should push Christian if not Catholic ideas and morals. It has since its conception but this idea (through seperation of church and state) has in recent times been threatened.
I think our problems stem from news media who air shows like “divorce court”, and “desperate housewives”, and try to further anti-Christian and (seemingly I dont know maybe coincidense) anti-capitalist views on people. Capitalism is our type of govornment but evil finds its way into our people. Evil causes poverty. From within govornment and without. But not exclusively through capitalism.

 

[TEPO]

Well, I’m a Christian, so I believe in the Body of Christ, which is not an individualistic doctrine. Perhaps other forms of theism are compatible with individualism.

1) I understand some of what you say… But I don’t understand why you think that believing in the body of Christ should compel me to abandon individualism. I think it is much more complicated than that. Capitalism and individualism go hand in hand as a form of enacting social duties such as work, and human rights. These duties are essential and assumed by those of the Church and those who oppose the Church. Therefore we have peace for **all ** peoples. (the weeds and the chosen ones)
I stand by the Church first, my family second, and my nation/organizations third. This is the pecking order for me…
To blend them all into one idea is not possible in my mind. It is not a more “Catholic response”…

**2) ** Um, did you say the majority of scientists? I think the split is more like 50/50…
Which forces me (after 20 years of struggling to find evidence) to pull out the “psuedoscience” card. check out this site to help detect “psuedoscience”. Its obvious…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

**3) ** I’m sorry, but I believe it is you who is mistaken. Capitalism promotes a society where govornment is oppressed. Socialism promotes a society where the People are oppressed.
Are you telling me that people can not engage the world without falling into sin? And that we need to be held in line by force? Maybe the weeds, but not us… lets enlighten them…

 

[Contarini]

1) I understand some of what you say… But I don’t understand why you think that believing in the body of Christ should compel me to abandon individualism.

If you are an organ of Christ’s body, then you obviously aren’t an autonomous individual, are you?

I think it is much more complicated than that. Capitalism and individualism go hand in hand as a form of enacting social duties such as work, and human rights. These duties are essential and assumed by those of the Church and those who oppose the Church. Therefore we have peace for **all ** peoples. (the weeds and the chosen ones)
I stand by the Church first, my family second, and my nation/organizations third. This is the pecking order for me…
To blend them all into one idea is not possible in my mind. It is not a more “Catholic response”…

First of all, it is possible to subsume all your identities into your membership in the Church. For a Christian, that should be the identity that matters and which governs all the rest. The Church is not just a club to which one belongs–even the most important of the several clubs to which you belong. The Church is who you are in Christ. If you believe in Christ at all, how can you have any identity that is not described as part of your identity within Christ’s Body? That doesn’t mean of course that you don’t belong to your family, and even arguably in some sense to your nation. But the relationship is hierarchical. That means more than that one is more important than another. It means that your identity in Christ is the identity that shapes and sets the terms for all the others.

In practice I challenge you to consider whether, if capitalism and individualism are as important to you as you say, you are really giving the Church the priority that you claim. How can you lead most of your life governed by principles totally other than those of the Church and claim that the Church is the most important? Something doesn’t compute.

**2) ** Um, did you say the majority of scientists? I think the split is more like 50/50

I am not claiming that wikipedia is always reliable, but as a place to start, here’s what it says:

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements

Can the dissenters match this list of prominent scientists who signed the “Warning to Humanity”? I recognize that numbers and prestige can still be wrong. But an honest debate starts with the recognition that if the dissenters are right, then the vast majority of scientists, including the most distinguished ones, are wrong. It’s possible. But to an uninformed layperson like myself not likely. And so far it seems to me that while the advocates of the dominant position have been guilty of hyperbole, the dissenters are guilty of much worse distortions, including your 50/50 claim (I don’t of course blame you for this–I’m sure you came by it honestly, but from what I know it doesn’t seem to be accurate, which implies that someone is distorting something somewhere).

**3) ** I’m sorry, but I believe it is you who is mistaken. Capitalism promotes a society where govornment is oppressed. Socialism promotes a society where the People are oppressed.
Are you telling me that people can not engage the world without falling into sin? And that we need to be held in line by force? Maybe the weeds, but not us… lets enlighten them…

The whole point of the “weeds” parable is that you can’t draw a sharp line between the “weeds” and the “wheat.” So I’m puzzled and disturbed by the way you are using this language.

No, I don’t think that we can’t engage the world without falling into sin. I’m not sure where you got that idea.

My point was that the classical capitalist theory argues for an “invisible hand,” in which the prosperity of all is enhanced by each person pursuing their own maximal profit. It’s true that the argument is often made that capitalism allows for huge amounts of private benevolence, which helps people far more than government-sponsored action. And I don’t necessarily have a quarrel with that approach. I am not an enemy of economic freedom as long as it is genuinely viewed as a means to an end and not as something sacred in itself. But *some *(by no means all) enthusiastic advocates of capitalism seem to see it as the latter.

Edwin

 

[TEPO]

The whole point
Edwin

I find it utterly amazing that I disagree with almost EVERYTHING that you say. I am baffled. I will have to do some research and repost in a while…

 

[Contarini]

I find it utterly amazing that I disagree with almost EVERYTHING that you say.

That’s the fun of a forum like this, isn’t it?

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Langdell,

I would not say it is a quibble…

I totally agree with your points 1-3. Capitalism has proven to be the best system at creating wealth across the board, and wealthier societies are better for all classes in them and for the environment.

I have just one quibble – you said that you don’t think that any economic system creates poverty. I think communism created poverty in most of the places where it has been tried. It forced people to adopt less efficient means of making a living.
.

I would say your point is well taken… Atheistic communism has done more to impoverish the vast majority of the people under that system then any other sysem I am aware of. And while no economic model is to be considered for ‘sainthood’ - atheistic communism probably occupies the last rung on the economic model ladder. The only place where any form of communism seems to work is in religious communities.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MindOverMatter,

I do not think anyone was trying to explain away poverty. That would be an impossibility - like trying to explain away trees and grass - they simply exist.

The word poverty, has no meaning out side of the economic social order created by the freewill of people. Accept in a religious sense, such as when somebody chooses to take the vow of poverty when joining a religious order or something to that effect. But thats different.

Trying to explain away poverty as if it doesn’t exist, as if it is not an evil inflicted on people as a result of greed, may deceive me whom is limited in knowledge and intellect, but it will not deceive God.

Generally speaking, most people shun poverty - view it as a failure and seek to relieve themselves of the effects of poverty. Limited food, impure water and lack of sanitation are just examples of poverty that most people realize are not what they want. The real challenge for all is how to arrive at the satisfaction of basic human needs - and here we have the adaptation of these various economic systems we have seen throughout history.

I do not think anyone has a ‘pure’ form of any one system (well… maybe North Korea). It is this mix that can lead to an interesting dialogue.

God bless

 

[WillieWonka]

Hi, Langdell,

I would not say it is a quibble…

I would say your point is well taken… Atheistic communism has done more to impoverish the vast majority of the people under that system then any other sysem I am aware of. And while no economic model is to be considered for ‘sainthood’ - atheistic communism probably occupies the last rung on the economic model ladder. The only place where any form of communism seems to work is in religious communities.

God bless

Let’s be sure to use the same standard in evaluating all the economic systems. I look to the increase in prosperity dues to the system. Capitalism certainly has increased prosperity.

But, we also have to acknowledge that communism also increased prosperity. This demands we look at the situation prior to communism, and then during communism. While we might say communism ruled over poverty, it was incrementally better than before communism. For example, plows replaced horses. Autos and trucks became available. Hospitals were built, famines less severe, etc.

There is no question that capitalism produced far more prosperity than communism, and relative to capitalism, communism was a dismal failure.

It is also very instructive to recognize that communism had many of the characteristics that moralists are demanding of capitalism. It advocated common ownership, shared benefit and shared costs, primacy of the worker, and a universal recognition we are all responsible for one another.

It also had the very best central planners in the world. There were none better at analyzing the entire economy. The Soviet Gosplan folks were really very good, just not good enough. Nobody is that good.

And we are all indebted to communism for exposing the real world workings of property rights. The small plots the peasants were alllowed to plant when they were not working on the collectve farm far out produced the large state enterprises. Why? Because people care more about themselves, their family, and their own stuff than they care about everyone else, regardless of what any religion or moralist says.

 

[Langdell]

But, we also have to acknowledge that communism also increased prosperity. This demands we look at the situation prior to communism, and then during communism. While we might say communism ruled over poverty, it was incrementally better than before communism. For example, plows replaced horses. Autos and trucks became available. Hospitals were built, famines less severe, etc.

You could be right. I don’t have any authority to dispute the issue. My unprovable hunch is that on net communism actually destroyed wealth by shortening lives, dislocating people, breaking up enterprises, etc. If that’s true anywhere, my guess would be in Cuba and Eastern Europe. Economically, they were not in terrible shape (relatively speaking) before the communists took over. Cuba is now dirt poor. The wealth of Eastern Europe was siphoned off to support other parts of the Soviet empire. I would imagine it’s a lot harder to make my claim regarding Russia, however.

 

[WillieWonka]

You could be right. I don’t have any authority to dispute the issue. My unprovable hunch is that on net communism actually destroyed wealth by shortening lives, dislocating people, breaking up enterprises, etc. If that’s true anywhere, my guess would be in Cuba and Eastern Europe. Economically, they were not in terrible shape (relatively speaking) before the communists took over. Cuba is now dirt poor. The wealth of Eastern Europe was siphoned off to support other parts of the Soviet empire. I would imagine it’s a lot harder to make my claim regarding Russia, however.

Correct. I was concentrating on Russia and China.

 

[fish90]

I don’t think capitalism promotes human dignity. People do that. They can do that under any system. They can promote human dignity under capitalism, and they can not promote it under capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t have anythig to do with it.

And exactly what is human dignity?

Okay, I understand what you are saying.

Wealth creation is a great need in order to create jobs. I will never get a job from a poor person nor will anyone else. My problem with capitalism is that it strives to cut costs and will ultimately hurt people (getting laid off, cut benefits, etc.) and it can be abused in third world countries. These problems can be helped or even corrected without any problem. The issue I will admit lies with the evil everybody is tempted with.

The consequences of the business cycle do not really hurt people in this country too badly. The government programs do help people greatly. There will be some pain but no starvation that happens in poorer countries. God Bless.

I must admit that basic socialism can come in when the role of the family cannot be met and help the people only if the people vote for it and is funded correctly. I must demand that this help comes from the state not the federal government for not only reasons of subsidiarity but for the fact that a state cannot print money or vote for a larger deficit:thumbsup:. The socialism must be greatly contained. If the government pays for your gas, car, refrigerator and groceries, where goes the want for success when all your profit goes to the government?

Another side note: I thought individualism when abused concerns the Church. Any answers?

This statement was probably answered already, but if you ever talk to a Marxist they might say that true communism has never happened since all communism that has happened in the past was ruled by a dictator. How do you respond to that?

 

[TEPO]

Another side note: I thought individualism when abused concerns the Church. Any answers?

This statement was probably answered already, but if you ever talk to a Marxist they might say that true communism has never happened since all communism that has happened in the past was ruled by a dictator. How do you respond to that?

The quotes come from the book:
Doers of the Word
“Moral Theology for the Third Millennium”
by Terrence Kennedy, C.Ss.R

“Revelation furnishes us with a message that puts the person both above and at the centre of creation.”

In other words, since God created man in his image, we are naturally individuals. But to be precise, it is actually “Personalism”, that was created by Christianity through the idea of the Holy Trinity, as well as through the idea of Christs two natures (divine and human).
Personalism exists between the pillars of totalitarianism and Individualism but I think lies closer to individualism almost right next to it really…
The problem with personalism, is that it is “in great part a reaction to scientific study of the human ‘from below’.” In other words is influenced by biology, and science. Which in TEPO’s opinion is our problem today.

Are you suggesting that a “Christian” type communism is possible? I disagree, but only because the world will never allow it!

 

[TEPO]

If you are an organ of Christ’s body, then you obviously aren’t an autonomous individual, are you?

First of all, it is possible to subsume all your identities into your membership in the Church. For a Christian, that should be the identity that matters and which governs all the rest. The Church is not just a club to which one belongs–even the most important of the several clubs to which you belong. The Church is who you are in Christ. If you believe in Christ at all, how can you have any identity that is not described as part of your identity within Christ’s Body? That doesn’t mean of course that you don’t belong to your family, and even arguably in some sense to your nation. But the relationship is hierarchical. That means more than that one is more important than another. It means that your identity in Christ is the identity that shapes and sets the terms for all the others.

In practice I challenge you to consider whether, if capitalism and individualism are as important to you as you say, you are really giving the Church the priority that you claim. How can you lead most of your life governed by principles totally other than those of the Church and claim that the Church is the most important? Something doesn’t compute.

**2) ** Um, did you say the majority of scientists? I think the split is more like 50/50

I dont really know where to begin. But for the Catholic church, I think the whole notion of “being one body with Christ as our head”, I guess that means the Church makes up this Body. So how can we take that ‘Catholic’ idea and use it in a Govornmental form? Especially when millions of Americans claim to be athiest, or gaia lovers?
Since we are govorning a ‘territory’, and not a ‘people’ it makes no sense… I mean, assuming you still want a “Christian”, type govornment, and moral system.
Do you think that Law, will enforce our Christian values on everyone?
Sorry, it has worked at times in history, but I dont see it working today. America is too big, and diverse… —(just my opinion)—

 

[WillieWonka]

Okay, I understand what you are saying.

Wealth creation is a great need in order to create jobs. I will never get a job from a poor person nor will anyone else. My problem with capitalism is that it strives to cut costs and will ultimately hurt people (getting laid off, cut benefits, etc.) and it can be abused in third world countries. These problems can be helped or even corrected without any problem. The issue I will admit lies with the evil everybody is tempted with.

The consequences of the business cycle do not really hurt people in this country too badly. The government programs do help people greatly. There will be some pain but no starvation that happens in poorer countries. God Bless.

I must admit that basic socialism can come in when the role of the family cannot be met and help the people only if the people vote for it and is funded correctly. I must demand that this help comes from the state not the federal government for not only reasons of subsidiarity but for the fact that a state cannot print money or vote for a larger deficit:thumbsup:. The socialism must be greatly contained. If the government pays for your gas, car, refrigerator and groceries, where goes the want for success when all your profit goes to the government?

Another side note: I thought individualism when abused concerns the Church. Any answers?

This statement was probably answered already, but if you ever talk to a Marxist they might say that true communism has never happened since all communism that has happened in the past was ruled by a dictator. How do you respond to that?

1. Capitalism does strive to cut costs. Every system does that. The fact that people are laid off is not because costs are cut. It is because costs are too high. Nobody has ever been laid off because costs were too low. Also, keep in mnd that profit is what builds new plants that employ more people. All new business comes from profit.

2a. Consider that all countries were once third world countries. The US, Western Europe, Japan… they were all at the level of 3rd world countries. They all embraced capitalism, experienced the same thing, and found prosperity increasing year by year. Today’s third world countries are going through the same thing every other successful country went through. But, they are more fortunate since they have models to follow. (Korea made it from third to first world in 40 years.)

2b. Nobody complaiend when these countries were emerging. They thought the new prosperity was great, and they worked hard to get it. Now, with a contrast between countires, some think newly emerging economies should be prohibited from following a successful model. They want to interfere to make those countries laboratories for their moral models. Well, the people in those countries don’t want any of it. They want everyone to get out of their way so they, too, can prosper.

T3. he Church can be concerned with anything it wants. But people will use common sense and put their own welfare first, regardless of what the Church wants. Remember, the Church had enormous power for 1,400 years, and its ideas never led to prosperity. I think it’s out of it’s depth. I read the encyclicals and they are all very nice. That’s the easy part. Anyone can write them, but few have the talent to figure out how to implement them. And moralists who are ignorant of economics do horrible damage.

1. I respond to the communist that human behavior is not geared to communism. Man is an acqusitive being, and he holds onto what he acquires. He looks out for himself first, then his immedite family, then the community. Nobody works as hard for the common good as they do for themselves and their families. History shows that over and over. I don’t care what religion syas, all we have to do is observe. (Notice the morlaists hold onto their stuff just as tightly as everyone else.)

Ask the communst why the private fields the peasants worked in the hours they had off from the collective farms thrived. Thye did far better than the collectives. It happened over and over again. True communism will never happen because nobody really gives a hoot about the collective.

1. My observations aren’t nice? Don’t comply with religion? Cynical? Sure they are. And the genius of capitalism is that it has harnessed all thse selfish drives to produce prosperity for everyone. The moralists might not like it, but it works better than anything else.

 

[TEPO]

—Edwin (Contarini)
—This is really for you too!!!

The quotes come from the book:
Doers of the Word
“Moral Theology for the Third Millennium”
by Terrence Kennedy, C.Ss.R

“Revelation furnishes us with a message that puts the person both above and at the centre of creation.”

In other words, since God created man in his image, we are naturally individuals. But to be precise, it is actually “Personalism”, that was created by Christianity through the idea of the Holy Trinity, as well as through the idea of Christs two natures (divine and human).
Personalism exists between the pillars of totalitarianism and Individualism but I think lies closer to individualism almost right next to it really…
The problem with personalism, is that it is “in great part a reaction to scientific study of the human ‘from below’.” In other words is influenced by biology, and science. Which in TEPO’s opinion is our problem today.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, fish90,

You were doing fine … until …

I must admit that basic socialism can come in when the role of the family cannot be met and help the people only if the people vote for it and is funded correctly. I must demand that this help comes from the state not the federal government for not only reasons of subsidiarity but for the fact that a state cannot print money or vote for a larger deficit:thumbsup:. The socialism must be greatly contained. If the government pays for your gas, car, refrigerator and groceries, where goes the want for success when all your profit goes to the government?

This seems to imply a multi-flavor (economic system) dispensor, where you can get a splash of this and grugle or two of that until somehow the right ‘mix’ is achieved. In theory, it sounds great … it really is a variation of Plato’s "Republic’ and Moore’s “Utopia” - the guy in charge (philosopher-king or what have you) knows best! As I see it, these great and grand ideas have fired the imagination for centuries - but, the snag comes in when someone really tries to apply them. Human beings are a complicated group… and I think the guy who probably captured it best was Adam Smith in “Wealth of Nations” when it spoke of the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. Taken as a whole it works… even though it has its setbacks and difficulties (boom and bust cycles, too!)

Truning things over to the individual States has some advantages - Lord knows what happens to intelligence, integrity and initiate when people are elected to Federal office!

God bless

 

[TEPO]

This is why I feel, Capitalistic and Conservative ideals in America are NOT sinful.
— It is a ‘system’ that works in keeping peace.
— It is a set of guidelines or rules that almost anyone of any intellect can follow.
— It allows for people to Not follow if they so choose.
— It allows freedom
— It promotes the concept of the “person” first as indicated by the Bible

These are the areas where our Capitalistic system needs change
— Laws should not be put into place so rapidly and recklessly
— Criminal system needs revamping
— Freedom of information is made to work against the People (per credit report and criminal reports prevent people from getting jobs)

These are areas of moral concearn for Catholics and Christians… Who belong first to the Body of Christ (perhaps churches/organizations can push change in these areas)
— The homeless are shunned into the gutters
— Abortion is rampant
— Drugs are rampant
— pornography is rampant
— those with ‘unworthy’ convictions are dragged by this society as if they are scum of the earth.
— Mental problems (including drug addiction) causes poverty
— Those who lack God are a danger to everyone
— Public media spreads the evil messages of: divorce, carelessness, permiscuativeness, violence, lust, lazyness, etc, etc, etc…

This is a work in progress. But generally speaking, so far it looks like all the problems we face are due in large by the lack of God in society today. The Church needs to step it up! (NOT THE GOVORNMENT)

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I stand in agreement that the public media has become Satan’s cheerleading squad.

But we allowed it to happen. In the name of ‘tolerance,’ we sold ourselves down the river Styx.

 

[TEPO]

— O.K. I’ll go ahead and tell you the first step on “stepping it up”. —

For one week, I want you to carry around a Catholic Bible or some visible catholic object with you everywhere you go until you dont feel embarassed anymore. All the while be polite and patient with everyone you meet along the way.

Try it if you dare!!!