The rich are not more trustworthy than the poor

[Otavio]

Hello, catholic brothers.
I have written an article refuting one sign carried at Brazil in the protests against our President. I do not voice my opinion on the merits of the protest. I just wanted to criticize one particular sign that said: “A country without corruption is a country where rich people rule, because a rich man does not need to steal”.
I wanted to show how that this idea message is cleary anti-christian. I used arguments by the great english-catholic writer G.K Chesterton ( “it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor”." Hope you like it. God bless.

otaviopinto.com/index.php/2015/08/21/an-incorrect-sign-no-the-rich-are-not-more-trustworthy-than-the-poor/

 

[Latias]

Hello, catholic brothers.
I have written an article refuting one sign carried at Brazil in the protests against our President. I do not voice my opinion on the merits of the protest. I just wanted to criticize one particular sign that said: “A country without corruption is a country where rich people rule, because a rich man does not need to steal”.
I wanted to show how that this idea message is cleary anti-christian. I used arguments by the great english-catholic writer G.K Chesterton ( “it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor”." Hope you like it. God bless.

otaviopinto.com/index.php/2015/08/21/an-incorrect-sign-no-the-rich-are-not-more-trustworthy-than-the-poor/

Really? It is not only anti-Christian, but it militates against common sense. It shows the very insidious effect of propaganda where the rich are regarded as necessarily virtuous.

So any leftist program is construed as “stealing”? Do not forgot that wealthy people can be accused of nepotism as they want to maintain the same standard of material privilege for their friends and family (if not themselves), and that may involve stealing and manipulating the law and politicians to favor those who the rich person highly regards.

 

[GEddie]

The rich can be just as venal as anybody. That often is, after all, how they got rich.

Conversely, rule by the poor can lead to class struggle, as well.

Really, it is six of one, half dozen of the other.

ICXC NIKA

 

[DaveBj]

The rich are not more trustworthy than the poor.

And vice versa.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Oh wonderful…another Class Warfare thread. I love these.

I saw a sign once. Is this what you folks are proposing…?

 

[unstoppable_II]

Oh wonderful…another Class Warfare thread. I love these.

I saw a sign once. Is this what you folks are proposing…?

In the story, Viva Zapata, about a Mexican revolutionary, Zapata’s army passed through a village. He told a shoe shop owner to lower his prices so the average peasant could afford them. On his way back, he noted the prices hadn’t been lowered, so he hanged the owner. Now no one had any shoes [but they were all equal].

 

[Latias]

Oh wonderful…another Class Warfare thread. I love these.

I saw a sign once. Is this what you folks are proposing…?

What does this thread have to do with class warfare? It is about rich people aren’t corruptible and malversation because they are incapable of stealing?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What does this thread have to do with class warfare? It is about rich people aren’t corruptible and malversation because they are incapable of stealing?

Oh!. Well if that’s what it is about then this is a GREAT thread because rich people aren’t evil, corruptible and malversation. We are also scrupulously honest. If it were not for us…poor people would be a lot poorer.

I am glad to know that the purpose of this thread was NOT to drive a wedge between the classes as losers like Lenin and Marx did.

 

[Otavio]

Oh!. Well if that’s what it is about then this is a GREAT thread because rich people aren’t evil, corruptible and malversation. We are also scrupulously honest. If it were not for us…poor people would be a lot poorer.

I am glad to know that the purpose of this thread was NOT to drive a wedge between the classes as losers like Lenin and Marx did.

Hello, Cobalt. I made this thread to criticize the way of thinking of some brazilians, who think the rich are somehow more unlikely to be bribed than the poor. I don’t want to drive a wedge between classes.Altough Chesterton was indeed not very fond of rich people, I wanted to use his idea that “it is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes”. We all can fall into darkness.

Lenin and Marx? This is the kind of things people say against Pope Francis. Chesterton, following the spirt of “Rerum Novarum”, criticized both capitalism and socialism.

God bless.

 

[Latias]

Oh!. Well if that’s what it is about then this is a GREAT thread because rich people aren’t evil, corruptible and malversation. We are also scrupulously honest. If it were not for us…poor people would be a lot poorer.

I am glad to know that the purpose of this thread was NOT to drive a wedge between the classes as losers like Lenin and Marx did.

“capable of malversation”

You are the one who turned it into a thread of class warfare. Poor people can be dishonest; rich people can be dishonest.

What do you mean drive a wedge? Do you think that classes do not exist, or that they have different material and political interests?

So are you personally wealthy?

 

[Otavio]

Really? It is not only anti-Christian, but it militates against common sense. It shows the very insidious effect of propaganda where the rich are regarded as necessarily virtuous.

Yes. Chesterton himself says that: But since 70% of brazilians are Catholic, I wanted to show how that sign (that was all over the internet couple of weeks ago - to be fair, most poeple in those protest probably disagree with that) is at odds with our faith.

Chesterton:

It is not certainly un-Christian to rebel against the rich or to submit to the rich. But it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor. A Christian may consistently say, “I respect that man’s rank, although he takes bribes.” But a Christian cannot say, as all modern men are saying at lunch and breakfast, “a man of that rank would not take bribes.” For it is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes. It is a part of Christian dogma; it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part of obvious human history. When people say that a man “in that position” would be incorruptible, there is no need to bring Christianity into the discussion. Was Lord Bacon a bootblack? Was the Duke of Marlborough a crossing sweeper? In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this momen

 

[jinglebelle]

The poor needed neither Lenin nor Marx

 

[ichabode]

The rich can be just as venal as anybody. That often is, after all, how they got rich.

Wow, everyone who has worked hard in life and risen to a wealthy status did it through scrupulous means. Unbelievably pig headed.

Chesteron goes on to explain, “For it is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes.”

If you are a person you are a sinner. Just because you are poor does not make you a saint. This is why anyone in public office their moral character does matter. I recall the press when speaking about President Clinton, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal that moral character does not matter only economic results. Of course it is a lie. The rich or poor can and are sinful and you should only give your trust blindly in God all else verify.

 

[GEddie]

Lenin a loser? He became leader of the world’s largest nation, something none of us will ever do.

Religious types have a propensity to admire the poor; secularists, particularly Americans, to admire the rich; but neither contingent is particularly worthy of admiration.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Hello, Cobalt. I made this thread to criticize the way of thinking of some brazilians, who think the rich are somehow more unlikely to be bribed than the poor. I don’t want to drive a wedge between classes.Altough Chesterton was indeed not very fond of rich people, I wanted to use his idea that “it is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes”. We all can fall into darkness.

Lenin and Marx? This is the kind of things people say against Pope Francis. Chesterton, following the spirt of “Rerum Novarum”, criticized both capitalism and socialism.

God bless.

Sorry, I am confused…
I am not familiar with a “Christian Dogma” that promotes “bribery”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“capable of malversation”

Yes…that is a better way of saying it…Thanks for pointing that out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latias View Post
What does this thread have to do with class warfare? It is about rich people aren’t corruptible and malversation because they are incapable of stealing?

You are the one who turned it into a thread of class warfare. Poor people can be dishonest; rich people can be dishonest.

Perhaps I did. However if class has nothing to do with it why not say PEOPLE can be dishonest. Rather than mention rich and poor?

What do you mean drive a wedge? Do you think that classes do not exist, or that they have different material and political interests?

Yes, Classes exist and yes they have different material and political interests…although material and political interests are not exclusively class related.

I saw a wedge being driven when I read your statement:

“…Do not forgot that wealthy people can be accused of nepotism as they want to maintain the same standard of material privilege for their friends and family (if not themselves), and that may involve stealing and manipulating the law and politicians to favor those who the rich person highly regards.”

So are you personally wealthy?

Funny question…I am wealthy. But there are many with more wealth than I have.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Lenin a loser? He became leader of the world’s largest nation, something none of us will ever do.

True…and he “broke a few eggs to make his omelette”.

How is that “great” nation doing today?

 

[GEddie]

True…and he “broke a few eggs to make his omelette”.

How is that “great” nation doing today?

Well, they’re taking advantage of our current spineless leadership to return to world prominence…

ICXC NIKA

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well, they’re taking advantage of our current spineless leadership to return to world prominence…

ICXC NIKA

Yes…but not via Lenin’s communism. That proved a disaster.

The more freedom people have…the richer they become.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I believe the OP’s main but not specific point (correct me if I am wrong) was simply to explain one of the themes of Sunday’s Readings (specifically the second Reading) which is simply to “show no partiality.” Which can easily be summed up by the answer of this thread.