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

[endoentropism]

I was looking at graphs so my numbers were a bit off.
The actual number for 2011 was 8.7% of GDP, down from 10% at the height of the crisis:
bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-14/u-s-budget-deficit-increased-to-1-3-trillion-in-fiscal-2011.html

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Jesus did not really leave a clear economic record - or, set of financial principles that we could honestly follow.

However, Jesus left us the Church to guide us in areas like this. The Popes have written extensively on economics matters. I try to the best of my ability to form my thoughts based on these writings. They are often complex (as befits the subject) and are never written from an exclusively “American” (USA) point of view.

The Church agrees that the state (national governments) have an obligation to care for their citizens in matters of health, welfare, and education as well as defense and other sovereign issues. How a state goes about raising the funds and how it manages the care of its citizens are issues for prudential judgement. However, the obligation of the state to its citizens is there.

As for your other examples, Jesus’ message to us was about restraining our greed and desires for “more” and “better”. So, no, we can’t tell the shoemaker to “consider the lilies”, but perhaps we should consider them instead of putting another pair of shoes on credit.

 

[Geist]

Because the Church sends mixed messages, that is why. What do I mean by that, before the 1960s, as an institution the Church built Cathedrals, Hospitals, Orphanages, Universities, etc. But, that was then, now it builds nothing and our Bishops spend a good deal of their time lobbying western governments to increase Social Spending. All this under the banner of “social justice.” So in the eyes of many Jesus becomes community organizer who’s main function during his earthly ministry was to see that the rich were forced to give to the poor. Sounds like Socialism and/or Communism to me. Of course our Savior understood that the Gospel message would turn hearts, result in charity, and the Church could welcome in the Kingdom. That part of His story seems to have been lost to much of our leadership.

This has puzzled me as well.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Strongly recommend that, especially posters here, read the relatively recent encyclical, Centissimus Annus. It is an important document and was issued in Standard American English.

Important.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Hey endoentropism,

Thanks for the reply. Yes I understand how our taxes work. But again the problem is still paramount because accourding to the U.S. Treasury Dept around 80% of businesses file their net income as personal earnings. And as for the corporate rate it’s the highest rate in the world. Now add to that the payroll taxes and state and local taxes and you’re looking at a much higher real rate.

You think it’s farfetched to say that the U.S. could potentially be in a Greek situation? Well sure it won’t happen overnight, but the possibility is there all the same. As you mentioned the U.S.'s debt to GDP is 100%. Now that doesn’t looks so bad when you compare it to Greeks 140+% ratio, but it’s still a horrible sign to owe as much money as your entire economy brings in. This isn’t even taking into account our unfunded liabilities, which is much much worse then a puny 15 trillion. I’ve heard an economist claim that the amount of money we owe in our entitlement programs amounts to the GDP of 2 planet earths…source: Tom e Woods. usdebtclock.org is quite enlightening on this point. At our current rate In under a decade we will be paying more of our federal budget on interest on the debt then any other item on the budget… You think Greece has a liquidity problem? Just wait and see what happens if domestic and foreign banks become uninterested in purchasing more U.S. debt.

Also I disagree that printing more money and devaluing our currency would be a net positive. The answer to the trade war with China isn’t to start behaving like them. Regardless of whatever demand a cheaper dollar would bring for U.S. products abroad, the inflation and pension devaluation that would result could not justify it. I would argue that easy money and easy credit is what got us in this mess and wouldn’t be a solution to Greece right now.

 

[Contarini]

This is something I read a lot on internet forums (Yahoo Answers) liberals saying Jesus was a Socialist and a Communist.

I know Jesus said we should help the poor, hungry, sick etc but he never said the government should own our private property and spread it out evenly.

Indeed. Jesus lived under a pagan government which was not interested in listening to him.

And very few people actually say that the government should own everyone’s private property. This is a straw man.

The question is: why do “conservatives” think that Christians ought to act by one set of rules in their private behavior and another when they vote or exercise public office? I think I know the answer–because they think that governments are established by God for very specific purposes rather than simply being a group of people acting together for the common good. Insofar as this has any Biblical support, that support is predicated on the irrational assumption that Christians have the same relationship to a government in which they participate that they did to the pagan Roman Empire.

Paul says in Romans 13 that all higher powers (i.e., even the pagan and often oppressive Empire) are ordained by God to keep order by rewarding the good and punishing the evil (note that even here there’s a more positive view of government involved than many “conservatives” allow, since it’s supposed to reward as well as punish). In other words, they do God’s work even though they aren’t consciously in submission to God.

It does not follow from this that government’s sole responsibility is to punish crime and defend the country against its enemies, as some modern Americans seem to believe.

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

Do I detect a jaundiced view of ‘conservatives’ in your post? Let me say - there are so many shades of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ that such a designation is truly meaningless. Is one ‘conservative’ in one area but ‘liberal’ in another - and if so … how will he be classified or categorized?

As far as the Pharisees and Jewish leaders were concerned, they were the ‘Conservatives’ Christ was an out-of-control ‘Liberal’ - they were the establishment (or status quo) and they could not control Him, or His teachings or His behaviors. (He healed on the Sabbath, forgave sin, over-turned the tables of the Temple money-changers - and refused to stay dead!)

Now, I would not quickly dismiss the efforts of the Roman Empire to dispense justice in a usually fair manner for that period of time (while Christ’s case is a notable exception, note that Paul was acquitted when he finally arrived at Rome in chains). The Empire did an excellent job of conquering the Greeks and then cleaning up the pirates in the Med, making roads safe, maintaining civic pride and protecting the people from invaders … at least early on. But, when they failed doing these things - their civilization also failed. And, I think this is an important concept.

So, can you be a bit more specific when you state:

**It does not follow from this that government’s sole responsibility is to punish crime and defend the country against its enemies, as some modern Americans seem to believe.
**

Thanks and God bless

Indeed. Jesus lived under a pagan government which was not interested in listening to him.

And very few people actually say that the government should own everyone’s private property. This is a straw man.

The question is: why do “conservatives” think that Christians ought to act by one set of rules in their private behavior and another when they vote or exercise public office? I think I know the answer–because they think that governments are established by God for very specific purposes rather than simply being a group of people acting together for the common good. Insofar as this has any Biblical support, that support is predicated on the irrational assumption that Christians have the same relationship to a government in which they participate that they did to the pagan Roman Empire.

Paul says in Romans 13 that all higher powers (i.e., even the pagan and often oppressive Empire) are ordained by God to keep order by rewarding the good and punishing the evil (note that even here there’s a more positive view of government involved than many “conservatives” allow, since it’s supposed to reward as well as punish). In other words, they do God’s work even though they aren’t consciously in submission to God.

It does not follow from this that government’s sole responsibility is to punish crime and defend the country against its enemies, as some modern Americans seem to believe.

Edwin

 

[DLG123]

Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar”. Does our money have a rich person’s name on it, or does it say “Federal Reserve Note”?

Christ had sympathy for those who over-taxed and extorted the poor, but said nothing about taxing wealthy. Nothing.

He also told the poor and weary not fear for tomorrow’s bread, clothing, or shelter, for the Father would provide.

So Christ said that it is a government’s right to tax its citizens, and that the poor have a right to nourishment and dignity. So, how does taxing the rich to support the poor (i.e. “redistributing wealth”) contradict Christ’s teaching exactly?

Hey runningdude you are starting with a false premise… We do NOT get our money from the government… They get the money from the productive members of society. The money does NOT belong to the government “Ceasar”. Money is a compensation of our time and talents. if you are taxed 50% then you are in turn working for the government for 1/2 the year. Even if you taxed tyhe top"1%" for everything they had it would run our federal government for less than 3 months. And you could only do this once because then the productive would go all John Galt on society. The problem is SPENDING not taxing!!! If you look at Communism it ALWAYS turns into death and the rich controling all of the property. China 80 million under Moa, Russia 45 million under Stalin. Pol Pot killed another 7 million. And socialism all you need to look at is the failure of Europe with the failing faith and stagnant economies or the extreme of socialism… Nazi Germany to find out what communism and socialism produce.

Peace be with you.
DLG

 

[endoentropism]

Hey runningdude you are starting with a false premise… We do NOT get our money from the government… They get the money from the productive members of society. The money does NOT belong to the government “Ceasar”. Money is a compensation of our time and talents. if you are taxed 50% then you are in turn working for the government for 1/2 the year. Even if you taxed tyhe top"1%" for everything they had it would run our federal government for less than 3 months. And you could only do this once because then the productive would go all John Galt on society. The problem is SPENDING not taxing!!! If you look at Communism it ALWAYS turns into death and the rich controling all of the property. China 80 million under Moa, Russia 45 million under Stalin. Pol Pot killed another 7 million. And socialism all you need to look at is the failure of Europe with the failing faith and stagnant economies or the extreme of socialism… Nazi Germany to find out what communism and socialism produce.

Peace be with you.
DLG

Nazi Germany was not an “extreme of socialism”. I know they had “socialist” in the party name but you could call a Ford a Lamborghini and it wouldn’t make it so. Fascism and socialism are in direct opposition. Fascism is the ultimate expression of right wing ideology, not left wing ideology; the ultimate expression of left wing ideology is Communism.

The heavily socialist Nordic countries are doing just fine and consistently outrank the United States on metrics such as education, health care, social and economic mobility, and quality of life.

Socialism is not self-evidently bad, neither is Capitalism. Extremes in either direction are bad.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Hey runningdude you are starting with a false premise… We do NOT get our money from the government… They get the money from the productive members of society. The money does NOT belong to the government “Ceasar”.

Caesar also got his money through taxes - that’s what Matthew was up to. He also got wealth through the spoils of war. His picture was on the money because he was ruler when it was minted. More or less the same practice we have of putting the presidents on our money.

In order to have a functioning government that manages our sovereign concerns and cares for the welfare of its citizens, we need to have some level of taxation. How that money is spent is definately something that can (and is!) debated and a variety of plans are all within the scope of what the Church says is morally sound.

 

[DLG123]

Nazi Germany was not an “extreme of socialism”. I know they had “socialist” in the party name but you could call a Ford a Lamborghini and it wouldn’t make it so. Fascism and socialism are in direct opposition. Fascism is the ultimate expression of right wing ideology, not left wing ideology; the ultimate expression of left wing ideology is Communism.

The heavily socialist Nordic countries are doing just fine and consistently outrank the United States on metrics such as education, health care, social and economic mobility, and quality of life.

Socialism is not self-evidently bad, neither is Capitalism. Extremes in either direction are bad.

The NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY sounds pretty clear to me. Mousillini was the facist not Hitler.
The Nordic socialist countries are able to spend a massive amount on social programs because they do not have to spend money to create a proper military to defend their country because we do that for them.
Their economies have stagnant growth, high unempolyment and underemployment.

The ultimate expression of the right wing is not facism it is anarchy. No government at all.

DLG

 

[DLG123]

Caesar also got his money through taxes - that’s what Matthew was up to. He also got wealth through the spoils of war. His picture was on the money because he was ruler when it was minted. More or less the same practice we have of putting the presidents on our money.

In order to have a functioning government that manages our sovereign concerns and cares for the welfare of its citizens, we need to have some level of taxation. How that money is spent is definately something that can (and is!) debated and a variety of plans are all within the scope of what the Church says is morally sound.

His picture was on the money because it was his as was all the land of the kingdom and the lives of the people. If you did not pay taxes you did not get a fine and have court proceedings you got dead!

I am certainly not proposing NO taxes, I am fully aware of the need to have a functioning goverment but the amount of money we spend (that we do not have) and the programs we spend it on is unprecedented in human history. When my son was born last January HE, just for the fact of being born owed foreign governments and other bond holders roughly $40,000!

The most inefficient way to spend a dollar is give it to Washington. I would venture to say that as soon as the government started “spreading the wealth around” through the great society and the war on poverty is when the family started to deteriorate in America.

 

[DLG123]

Indeed. Jesus lived under a pagan government which was not interested in listening to him.

And very few people actually say that the government should own everyone’s private property. This is a straw man.

The question is: why do “conservatives” think that Christians ought to act by one set of rules in their private behavior and another when they vote or exercise public office? I think I know the answer–because they think that governments are established by God for very specific purposes rather than simply being a group of people acting together for the common good. Insofar as this has any Biblical support, that support is predicated on the irrational assumption that Christians have the same relationship to a government in which they participate that they did to the pagan Roman Empire.

Paul says in Romans 13 that all higher powers (i.e., even the pagan and often oppressive Empire) are ordained by God to keep order by rewarding the good and punishing the evil (note that even here there’s a more positive view of government involved than many “conservatives” allow, since it’s supposed to reward as well as punish). ***In other words, they do God’s work even though they aren’t consciously in submission to God. ***It does not follow from this that government’s sole responsibility is to punish crime and defend the country against its enemies, as some modern Americans seem to believe.

Edwin

So… the Chinese government aborting hundreds of millions of children is doing God’s work? I would bet that Jews in Germany around 70-80 years ago would diagree that Hitler was doing God’s work. How about the repressive regime in North Korea brutally starving his people? Pol Pot systematically killing millions of people? Stalin killing around 40 million people? Moa 80 Million people? How about the repressive regime of Castro? Are all these doing God’s work?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So… the Chinese government aborting hundreds of millions of children is doing God’s work? I would bet that Jews in Germany around 70-80 years ago would diagree that Hitler was doing God’s work. How about the repressive regime in North Korea brutally starving his people? Pol Pot systematically killing millions of people? Stalin killing around 40 million people? Moa 80 Million people? How about the repressive regime of Castro? Are all these doing God’s work?

No one who is sinning is doing God’s work in their sin. That should be obvious. However, in another example, would you say that a government having roads paved and maintained all over their country is bad, even if other actions, say forced sterilizations, are indeed sinful?

A government is made up of people, all of them flawed, but not all of them uniformly sinful or beyond redemption. It behooves us, as thoughtful Catholics, to see where things are good and discern them apart from the bad done by any regime.

That is why I encourage people to read the church’s documents on social justice and the dignity of all humans, and work to improve the lives of the people around them without just becoming a “sounding gong”.

 

[DLG123]

No one who is sinning is doing God’s work in their sin. That should be obvious. However, in another example, would you say that a government having roads paved and maintained all over their country is bad, even if other actions, say forced sterilizations, are indeed sinful?

A government is made up of people, all of them flawed, but not all of them uniformly sinful or beyond redemption. It behooves us, as thoughtful Catholics, to see where things are good and discern them apart from the bad done by any regime.

That is why I encourage people to read the church’s documents on social justice and the dignity of all humans, and work to improve the lives of the people around them without just becoming a “sounding gong”.

My post was directed at the line in red that I quoted.

No the paving of roads is a PROPER function of government. As is law enforcement and the military. Not paying for abortion, sterilization or sex change operations or mandating that a private company or citizen pay for or provide these services.

In my opinion Social Justice has been hijacked by the Left just as the term Liberal has been hijacked. When I hear the words “Social Justice” I cringe because it has become the hammer of the left to allow anything goes mentality. This is why the government is imposing its will on the Church what it can and can’t do… Social Justice

 

[Mrs_Sally]

My post was directed at the line in red that I quoted.

No the paving of roads is a PROPER function of government. As is law enforcement and the military. Not paying for abortion, sterilization or sex change operations or mandating that a private company or citizen pay for or provide these services.

Absolutely agree.

In my opinion Social Justice has been hijacked by the Left just as the term Liberal has been hijacked. When I hear the words “Social Justice” I cringe because it has become the hammer of the left to allow anything goes mentality. This is why the government is imposing its will on the Church what it can and can’t do… Social Justice

Agree again, somewhat. The terms, and what the Church means by it, can and should be rehabilitated. We do that by becoming familiar with what the Church actually teaches on this range of issues and doing our best to bring that view to live with the how we talk about these issues, what we work/volunteer for, and what we ask our governments for, what we vote for, and what we protest.

 

[Elvis_Guy]

This is something I read a lot on internet forums (Yahoo Answers) liberals saying Jesus was a Socialist and a Communist.

I know Jesus said we should help the poor, hungry, sick etc but he never said the government should own our private property and spread it out evenly.

Lol…:you have a sharp eye!!! Jesus said: My Kindom is NOT of this world!""… He laid out how Christians , at a cooperate level and individuals treat …poor…needy…BUT…never did He come Close to setting a Nation-State Mandate… Nor Did He write a Communist Manifesto! It is a Blasphemous attempt to force words and concepts onto our Lord…which never existed!..And notice Communism/Socialism …(Despite…flaws of free Market Capitolism…it rarely invades the Church…why? Simple: even a Liberal Economics Proffesor will TELL you…Capitiolism is “Passive” it simply is a structure! Socialism/ Communism is…active! It’s invasive even to the Church! … Look WHAT happens to The Church EVERY time it’s caught in a Socalist Communist groundswell … It gets…CLOBBERED…from the French Revolotion (an Early Socilist Experiment : first mandate !!!: TOPPLE THRONE …AND ALTAR) to 20th century examples… As its always been nightmarish for the Church…I can only chalk up supporters of Communism in the Church…as…Patently Stupid… Period! Self-Destruction by nature is foolish…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrs Sally,

This is getting a bit confusing … at least for me…

No one who is sinning is doing God’s work in their sin. That should be obvious. However, in another example, would you say that a government having roads paved and maintained all over their country is bad, even if other actions, say forced sterilizations, are indeed sinful?

What kind of moral relativism are you using here? Paved roads vs forced sterilizations … one is good, the other bad yet both are from the same government … so … average them out?

Alas, even Mussolini’s claim to having the trains run on time was a fabrication snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp - but his fascism produced real insults to the human spirit. Seriously, looking fondly at paved roads from a government that wants to crush freedom of conscience and religious liberty … can only result in a skewed view of one’s moral compass.

God bless

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Hi, Mrs Sally,

This is getting a bit confusing … at least for me…

What kind of moral relativism are you using here? Paved roads vs forced sterilizations … one is good, the other bad yet both are from the same government … so … average them out?

Alas, even Mussolini’s claim to having the trains run on time was a fabrication snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp - but his fascism produced real insults to the human spirit. Seriously, looking fondly at paved roads from a government that wants to crush freedom of conscience and religious liberty … can only result in a skewed view of one’s moral compass.

God bless

I’m saying simply that we must view actions individually. Of course a Christian (Catholic) can’t support a government that forces people to be sterilized. It doesn’t do the argument any good though to say that everything that government does is evil. The one action of forced sterilization is enough reason to vote against them (or work to have them overthrown if voting out of office isn’t an option).

In the original example though, we weren’t talking about forced sterlizations. Or at least I didn’t think we were. The redistribution of wealth examples were about dole payments, food stamps, and other social services. My argument there is that the state has an obligation to its people and a legitimate interest in a health, educated populace and so has a right to raise funds for those purposes. Just as it does for paving roads or waging war.