Why do modern liberals believe that Jesus would support involuntary redistribution of wealth

[runningdude]

While one might argue Jesus scolded religious leaders of His day show me in scripture where he scolded government.

The High Priest sentenced Jesus to death. How could he have done so, if he were not a political leader?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Monte RCMS,

A very thoughtful response

God bless

The “right” of the government to tax is not an open-ended “right” with no limits.

The consent of the governed also enters into it.

So, if I decide I do not want to be taxed, then I have the right to not consent and to take my activity and to elsewhere … unless YOU believe you have the right to exercise compulsory service onto me.

The command and*** the obligation is on the giver***. So YOU need to take care of the poor. Directly.

**The command to take care of the poor requires me to use my money and for me to use my time and for you to use your money and for you to use your time.

There is no command for me to take your money, use your money to pay a roomful of clerks to count and recount the money and then dole out ten cents on the dollar to the poor … several months after the need was first identified. For example.**

Taxation is also a political issue … especially when so many advocates of high taxation are focused on socially re-engineering our society … taxing one form of situation more heavily than another, for example. Or directly subsidizing one form of situation more heavily than another, for example.

The fact is that people are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. If the “community” votes to take that money, then questions need to be asked about their motives.

And there is the story of the golden goose that laid the golden eggs, where excessive “taxation” ruined the situation for everyone.

If people are taxed … to the degree that they consider unfairly … then they will “vote with their feet” … walk away to somewhere that is more conducive to their economic activity. Or they will just retire to avoid hassles. Sometimes, you can just ask too much.

If you look at The Ten Commandments, there are a number of LAWS against both taking the property of others AND against even having merely the DESIRE to take the property of others … REGARDLESS of your motive.

Does the money really go to the poor? For example.

Or does the money first pass through a salaried bureaucracy that keeps most of the money for itself? And does the salaried bureaucracy impose rules and regulations on the recipients … that create an incentive for immoral behavior, for example.

In real life, it is not uncommon for a government agency to call a church group where immediate needs need to be met … because the government agency just cannot respond in an appropriate way quickly enough.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Luke 18:18-23:

An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.’” And he replied, “All of these I have observed from my youth.” When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.

This is followed immediately by the part about how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, it easier for a camel to pass through the needle’s eye, etc. But what is impossible for man is possible for God.

From this I would take it that Jesus doesn’t support involuntary or forced redistribution of wealth. Rather Jesus wants us to voluntarily redistribute our own wealth. Furthermore, we should want to to redistribute our own wealth. If we feel like we’re somehow justified in holding onto our wealth, then we’ve lost sight of what really matters.

Of course the first century economy was different, and these days we generally understand that earning money and spending money and economic activity improves the economy as a whole, and directly or indirectly helps everyone, including the poor. What concerns me is that maybe some people reflexively use that as a sort of “dodge” to avoid their individual responsibility for helping the poor.

 

[kbwall]

Jesus was also a Jew and against gay marriage. He however, did not command the government to ban gay marriage.

Jesus also did not command that the government should force morality or religion on people, in fact, he stated that His kingdom is not of this Earth.

Either your little rules apply everywhere, or they apply nowhere.

 

[Hadrianus]

To my knowledge, Jesus made no direct pronouncements on forms of government or economic policy. The subject matter is one for moral theologians in so far as it touches the common good of society. Thus for example in Ireland in the late 19nth Century, land reform laws were introduced in order to reduce the size of the great estates and give the tenantry the possibility of land ownership as it was a healthier way of ordering society for the good of all. This was something of a belated response to the terrible potato famine when Ireland was actually exporting food for profit, while people were starving.

In practice such redistribution must be done in accordance with the principles of justice, and outright confiscation of private property is not permissible, without some compensation being given. Taxation is a somewhat different matter. Governments always possess the right to tax in order to maintain the common welfare, maintain defense, infrastructure etc. They must however do so with the consent of the governed. the object is the common good. It would be immoral however, to use taxation simply as a means of reducing the population to one, probably low, economic level; thereby destroying liberty.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kbwall,

Let’s be honest, 1st Century Rome did not have ‘gay marriage’ - there was an abundance of homosexual activity going on - but, no one was claiming rights to do unnatural deeds. Christ did not command the Roman government to pave streets, put out fires and build buildings - they were doing this all on their own.

But, there is morality that comes from the government - there really are laws that prohibit stealing and murder and false witness. And, yes, the government can enforce the laws that specifically apply to the morality we consider to be from God in the Ten Commandments. And, this is done because there is a secular reason behind having such a law.

Your dismissive remark, “Either your little rules apply everywhere,or they apply nowhere” totally misses the point. Even some of the Commandments have exceptions - Christ spoke about getting an ox that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, there is the use of lethal force to save your own life, stealing food to keep from starving … ah… but, I just can’t think of an exception to the 6th or 9th Commandments!

In my opinion, Bobby Jim and Hadrianus made valid statements - and erecting a straw-man argument really won’t do much to further your position.

God bless

Jesus was also a Jew and against gay marriage. He however, did not command the government to ban gay marriage.

Jesus also did not command that the government should force morality or religion on people, in fact, he stated that His kingdom is not of this Earth.

Either your little rules apply everywhere, or they apply nowhere.

 

[mark_a]

A priest I know says there is no grace for helping the poor through forced redistribution. Hence it also makes sense that those who would force this redistribution of other people’s money are no champions of the poor either. If they would encourage rather than mandate it, well that would be a different story.

Brilliant!!

 

[Tenofovir]

A priest I know says there is no grace for helping the poor through forced redistribution. Hence it also makes sense that those who would force this redistribution of other people’s money are no champions of the poor either. If they would encourage rather than mandate it, well that would be a different story.

Is it ok to fight pornography then? Is there grace in fighting pornography? If there is some grace or at least it is on the right path, why is it wrong for the government to tax people for those who are not being helped? If everyone was being helped by charities, there would not be a need for government help, but it seems that there are still people who don’t get charitable help because charitable help need not be consistent and depends on the kindness of strangers.

Now I’m not saying one should take from someone who has and give to the poor but I think there is a middle way here, between pure libertarian capitalism and socialism. “What you do for the least of these you do for me”, and if we want to save peoples’ souls from pornography, why not also help them by making charitable donations more convenient too? Right?

We also fight abortion, right? Why have government recognise it as murder? Why not just let Christians recognise it as murder and avoid it? Surely the government bit is not important? Should we be consistent across all these issues?

Have government recognise that pornography is undesirable and have it fight it.
Have government recognise that abortion is murder and have it outlaw it.
Have government take care of those who slip through the cracks of the Catholic/Christian/Secular Charity machine? Because surely even if one person suffers, (say goes without a home or goes to bed without food etc) and you as a Christian are enjoying something extra (a bigger McDonalds burger than you really need to nourish your body), you are damming yourself for not helping someone out there? And purposefully ignoring those who suffer out there, is not an excuse. At least with a government body, by law, dedicated people would be there to help those who are suffering the most.

What do you think? Perhaps such a body could be staffed by religious people who are less dedicated to being lazy bureaucrats and hold genuine dedication to use of the tax as efficiently and fairly as possible.

 

[Tenofovir]

From this I would take it that Jesus doesn’t support involuntary or forced redistribution of wealth. Rather Jesus wants us to voluntarily redistribute our own wealth. Furthermore, we should want to to redistribute our own wealth. If we feel like we’re somehow justified in holding onto our wealth, then we’ve lost sight of what really matters.

By giving your government the mandate every x (is it 4 in your country) years to protect those who slip through the cracks of individual effort and charity, you are giving money voluntarily. Also I agree that governments are terribly inefficient. Perhaps some form of private enterprise could help the poor instead? Maybe politicians could realise this? Or perhaps religious people devoted to God could oversee the use of funds. You after all trust people to oversee national defense or reading or constitution, right?

Also individual giving may be good but is it always efficient? Would giving money to a beggar always be the best thing, if he runs to the liquor store with it every day? A charitable organisation would have the expertise to both know the beggar and know the type of problem and best way to deal with it. So they can provide him a shelter, cooked meals and access to AA. But YOU can’t do that. For one you’re working 9-5 or longer hours yourself, you have a family to support and you have children to raise.

 

[kbwall]

But, there is morality that comes from the government - there really are laws that prohibit stealing and murder and false witness.

Yesh, because those acts interfere in the lives of others, they are there for the safety of citizens. Or, in the case of bearing false witness, it is to make the legal process go more smoothly. In any case, the law is there to protect and serve citizens, it says so on any police badge. It is not to enforce a moral code which people may or may not even agree with.

And, yes, the government can enforce the laws that specifically apply to the morality we consider to be from God in the Ten Commandments. And, this is done because there is a secular reason behind having such a law.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kbwall,

A truly remarkable presentation.

So, even when the presentation is accurate - you still dismiss it because it did not meet a personal criteria you have now set - a so-called 30% wasn’t good enough for you.

Tell 'ya what, buddy - just go right on dismissing and disrespecting everything you don’t agree with. There are consequences for every action or every inaction - and, we all have an accounting to make for our lives. Consider this well. There is more to life than mere human laws - for all of those mortal laws will end with your last breath. And, then the other reality that you have been dismissing and disrespecting will take on a whole new meaning.

God bless

Yesh, because those acts interfere in the lives of others, they are there for the safety of citizens. Or, in the case of bearing false witness, it is to make the legal process go more smoothly. In any case, the law is there to protect and serve citizens, it says so on any police badge. It is not to enforce a moral code which people may or may not even agree with.

Alright, this is one my biggest pet peeves. The Ten Commandments are not part of the legal system. Anybody who claims that they do either knows nothing about law, or knows nothing about the ten commandments. I will go through each and every single one, and only a handful will actually have secular backing, and are actually a law.

The first commandment, which is thou shalt not have any gods before me. Well, the law doesn’t force people into Christianity, so that one is out. The second commadment, taking God’s name in vain. Also not a law. It is also not a law that you have to obey the sabbath. The law also does not care how much you honor or love your parents, as long as you don’t harm them or something. Fifth commandment is not murder. Fine, you get that one, and I already explained why and it has nothing to do with religion. Sixth commandment regarding adultery; grounds for divorce, but it’s not illegal per se. Theft, like murder is illegal, and so is lying on anything official. The government does not care if you lie to your parents or something like that though. And the government does not care one iota about being covetous.

So, out of all ten, only the 5th, 7th, and 8th are actual laws. That’s a mere 3/10, and hardly grounds to say that the Ten Commandments are part of our laws.

I think it’s very valid in fact. You can’t just say certain things that Jesus preached about should be pushed onto everybody else, regardless if they follow Jesus or not, and then turn around and arbitrarily say that certain other things should not be enforced.

 

[JimG]

Hi, Kbwall,

Let’s be honest, 1st Century Rome did not have ‘gay marriage’ - there was an abundance of homosexual activity going on - but, no one was claiming rights to do unnatural deeds. Christ did not command the Roman government to pave streets, put out fires and build buildings - they were doing this all on their own. You are right; there was no gay marriage in ancient Rome. Roman government didn’t much care who did unnatural deeds, but it recognized that marriage was the basis of children, and children were the basis of the future existence of the empire. With no future generations, any society simply ceases to exist. That’s why no civil society has recognized “gay marriage,” until now. They knew quite well that a union in which the marital act was inherently impossible could never be marriage.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

That would depend on the liberal and their religious background and understanding of Jesus.

This. Not all who advocate for government aid to the poor are Christian. And of those who are, not all have the same background or theology.

Also, not all who advocate for government aid are calling for the “redistribution” of all wealth.

We need to remember that history in the US (and history in many other countries) shows that the wealthy - even Christian wealthy - do not give charitably to the extent that supports the poor. Poor did starve in the US, working poor even. Families survived because of child labor, working conditions were often inhumane and charity from the wealthy who benefitted was quite stingy in many cases.

Certainly the situation is different now, but those who work regularly with the poor have a different view than the rest of us.

I strongly support the return of local charity and neighbors helping neighbors, but sustainable programs also need to have sustainable funding. How to achieve that is where this problem will be solved.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrs Sally,

Can you please give a citation where government solved the problems you have addressed?

From my knowledge, government has never solved any - and from age to age, the poor have consistently remained with us. Have government made things better with laws concerning Child Labor, Compulsory Education, Worker Safety and the like - yes, indeed - but, note, the problems remain and have stubbornly remained.

This current government is not really talking about helping the poor - and we really need to be clear about this - it is talking about income redistribution to the tune that they will play. This is the same government that has not blinked when it comes threats, lawsuits and intimidation on forcing ‘health care’ insurance for religious institutions with sterilization and abortion causing drugs.

God bless

This. Not all who advocate for government aid to the poor are Christian. And of those who are, not all have the same background or theology.

Also, not all who advocate for government aid are calling for the “redistribution” of all wealth.

We need to remember that history in the US (and history in many other countries) shows that the wealthy - even Christian wealthy - do not give charitably to the extent that supports the poor. Poor did starve in the US, working poor even. Families survived because of child labor, working conditions were often inhumane and charity from the wealthy who benefitted was quite stingy in many cases.

Certainly the situation is different now, but those who work regularly with the poor have a different view than the rest of us.

I strongly support the return of local charity and neighbors helping neighbors, but sustainable programs also need to have sustainable funding. How to achieve that is where this problem will be solved.

 

[kbwall]

Hi, Kbwall,

A truly remarkable presentation.

So, even when the presentation is accurate - you still dismiss it because it did not meet a personal criteria you have now set - a so-called 30% wasn’t good enough for you.

Tell 'ya what, buddy - just go right on dismissing and disrespecting everything you don’t agree with. There are consequences for every action or every inaction - and, we all have an accounting to make for our lives. Consider this well. There is more to life than mere human laws - for all of those mortal laws will end with your last breath. And, then the other reality that you have been dismissing and disrespecting will take on a whole new meaning.

God bless

So, backhanded compliments and being passive aggressive are your style. OK then, so be it. I was hoping we could discuss this at least somewhat logically, but it’s clear you have no intention of doing anything of the sort, and instead choose to dismiss all logic and reason and instead choose to insinuate that I am going to Hell for thinking. You clearly only want to hear stuff that agrees with you.

And I do have respect for religion, a lot. I just understand the difference between human law and God’s law. I also do not pretend human law is something it isn’t. Yes, I fully believe that 30% is not anywhere near good enough to suggest there is correlation between man’s law and God’s law. To suggest that 30% is sufficient is ridiculous. That not majority, it’s not even half. It’s barely over a quarter. Especially when that 30% is simply rules that any civilization that has any hope of functioning properly would follow, and the other 70% are religious based. Simply because there is some slight overlap between the two does not mean that America’s laws are based on the Ten Commandments, nor does it mean we base laws based on Christian teachings, despite the fact that we have a line in our Constitution that states that we can’t make laws that (paraphasing) “favor a religion or prohibit the practise thereof”. Simply because I don’t think we should cover that line in white out and force our religion onto everybody else doesn’t mean that I don’t love Jesus. Or you.

By the way, those three commandments that just happen to be laws. Like I said, those are common rules. I bet I could twelve other religions with those commandments, and using your weird logic, also state that we should make laws bsed from those religions.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Redistribution of wealth by the government, any government, is nothing more than theft. Institutionalized theft, but theft nonetheless.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Hi, Mrs Sally,

Can you please give a citation where government solved the problems you have addressed?

From my knowledge, government has never solved any - and from age to age, the poor have consistently remained with us. Have government made things better with laws concerning Child Labor, Compulsory Education, Worker Safety and the like - yes, indeed - but, note, the problems remain and have stubbornly remained.

This current government is not really talking about helping the poor - and we really need to be clear about this - it is talking about income redistribution to the tune that they will play. This is the same government that has not blinked when it comes threats, lawsuits and intimidation on forcing ‘health care’ insurance for religious institutions with sterilization and abortion causing drugs.

God bless

It is exactly the things you list that I am talking about. Problems of course remain, and will remain since we live in a fallen world. That doesn’t however give us a pass on taking legitimate efforts to correct what we can.

The current US administration does not advocate policies that I agree with 100%. I am not defending them However, past administrations have not necessarily been orders of magnitude better. No US government has ever advocated exactly what the Church advocates. Certianly there are many prudential judgements in the process of helping the poor, and more than one acceptable way of reaching the same end.

To eliminate all government intervention would not be prudent or really even possible at this point, so it behooves us to come up with workable solutions and move forward a step at a time.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

It bugs me too. Surely no Christian, or good person in general, enjoys to see their fellow man live in poverty without the basic necessities, but to try and solve their problems by confiscating money from those responsible for creating an environment conducive to job growth is not just. Taxes must be competitive in a global economy and there is always the ever looming threat of being the next Greece, Spain, or Italy. Given that we didn’t have people dying in the street on a daily basis prior to the modern entitlement programs it is worth while to ask what happened to people in need back in those days. One difference is that the family was not so destroyed and our culture was much more religious in general. People had more children because they believed life to be sacred and for the economic purpose of creating a safety net and retirement plan for old age when they could no longer work and their children could take care of them. The churches have always helped to take care of those in need and still do today. The virtue of charity is not the government taking your money and giving it to your neighbor. Charity is when you freely choose to give money to your neighbor. That said I think that more modest programs to help the poor are legitimate and shouldn’t necessarily be thrown out.

But the thing that irritates me about this whole issue is hypocrisy. Liberals accuse conservatives and Christians in general of being hypocrites for being Christian and not favoring what the left considers more “Christian economic policy”. Liberals criticize conservatives for not forcing their religion into public policy when it comes to economics, but cry wolf at any mention of social policy influenced by their faith. So I guess it’s ok that we force Christian charity into public policy but for some reason it’s not ok to force Christian marriage or Christian convictions like the sanctity of life into public policy. Why the double standard? If religion isn’t supposed to be written into law then fine, so be it. But don’t turn around and criticize religious people for not forcing “Christian charity” into the public arena when you cry wolf every time they insist on Christian morals.

 

[tqualey]

Hold on a minute there, Sally …

My understanding is that you were advocating income re-distribution as the solution. Did I misunderstand you position?

God bless

It is exactly the things you list that I am talking about. Problems of course remain, and will remain since we live in a fallen world. That doesn’t however give us a pass on taking legitimate efforts to correct what we can.

The current US administration does not advocate policies that I agree with 100%. I am not defending them However, past administrations have not necessarily been orders of magnitude better. No US government has ever advocated exactly what the Church advocates. Certianly there are many prudential judgements in the process of helping the poor, and more than one acceptable way of reaching the same end.

To eliminate all government intervention would not be prudent or really even possible at this point, so it behooves us to come up with workable solutions and move forward a step at a time.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Curious Hobbit,

An excellent post!

God bless

It bugs me too. Surely no Christian, or good person in general, enjoys to see their fellow man live in poverty without the basic necessities, but to try and solve their problems by confiscating money from those responsible for creating an environment conducive to job growth is not just. Taxes must be competitive in a global economy and there is always the ever looming threat of being the next Greece, Spain, or Italy. Given that we didn’t have people dying in the street on a daily basis prior to the modern entitlement programs it is worth while to ask what happened to people in need back in those days. One difference is that the family was not so destroyed and our culture was much more religious in general. People had more children because they believed life to be sacred and for the economic purpose of creating a safety net and retirement plan for old age when they could no longer work and their children could take care of them. The churches have always helped to take care of those in need and still do today. The virtue of charity is not the government taking your money and giving it to your neighbor. Charity is when you freely choose to give money to your neighbor. That said I think that more modest programs to help the poor are legitimate and shouldn’t necessarily be thrown out.

But the thing that irritates me about this whole issue is hypocrisy. Liberals accuse conservatives and Christians in general of being hypocrites for being Christian and not favoring what the left considers more “Christian economic policy”. Liberals criticize conservatives for not forcing their religion into public policy when it comes to economics, but cry wolf at any mention of social policy influenced by their faith. So I guess it’s ok that we force Christian charity into public policy but for some reason it’s not ok to force Christian marriage or Christian convictions like the sanctity of life into public policy. Why the double standard? If religion isn’t supposed to be written into law then fine, so be it. But don’t turn around and criticize religious people for not forcing “Christian charity” into the public arena when you cry wolf every time they insist on Christian morals.