Two Polarized Ideological Views in America

[Darth Wong]

I'm sorry, I must have somehow missed the part of the Bible where Jesus talks about the importance of teaching the poor "self-sufficiency" by not giving them anything for free. Perhaps you could point me to it?

You'll be interested to know that a lot has been said, or added to, the Gosepl since the birth of Jesus Christ some two thousand and nine years ago. Many Christians, if not many Mike Wongs, finds it persuasive.

Can one poke holes in the logic? Absolutely. It is still what's buoying the opposition? It is.

It's funny how that doesn't answer my question at all. You dance about with vague allusions to material the Christians are quoting but which I would not find "persuasive", but you make no attempt whatsoever to identify this material. Once again, could you please show me the part of the Gospel where Jesus preaches that you should refuse to give to the poor, so that they will learn "self-sufficiency"?

[Axis Kast]

It's funny how that doesn't answer my question at all. You dance about with vague allusions to material the Christians are quoting but which I would not find "persuasive", but you make no attempt whatsoever to identify this material. Once again, could you please show me the part of the Gospel where Jesus preaches that you should refuse to give to the poor, so that they will learn "self-sufficiency"?

Would you please show me your papers of ordination as a man of God?

You stopped short in arguing that Christians act on the teaching provided by their preachers more often than from Biblical inspiration. What you should have said is that, while Christians read the Bible, they also receive input from other sources.

You're giving the impression of trying to prove a particular interpretation of the Bible here, which everybody must surely see. Again, this is the same behavior I previously identified elsewhere. You've accused me of armchair psychoanalysis. I just call them as I sees them.

[Darth Wong]

It's funny how that doesn't answer my question at all. You dance about with vague allusions to material the Christians are quoting but which I would not find "persuasive", but you make no attempt whatsoever to identify this material. Once again, could you please show me the part of the Gospel where Jesus preaches that you should refuse to give to the poor, so that they will learn "self-sufficiency"?

Would you please show me your papers of ordination as a man of God?

You stopped short in arguing that Christians act on the teaching provided by their preachers more often than from Biblical inspiration. What you should have said is that, while Christians read the Bible, they also receive input from other sources.

You're giving the impression of trying to prove a particular interpretation of the Bible here, which everybody must surely see. Again, this is the same behavior I previously identified elsewhere. You've accused me of armchair psychoanalysis. I just call them as I sees them.

Still trying to change the subject, I see. Once more, where is your source for this idea that Christianity advocates refusing to give to the poor, so that they may learn self-sufficiency? I'm not going to let you drag me off the point with your usual clever attempts to get me on the defensive by attacking my personality, asshole.

[Yona]

A quick hello to all since I'm new here,... then a couple of questions.

First, you are talking about a book that was written so long ago that there are many questions concerning it's completeness, veracity, and has so many "interpretations" that you can almost pick one to fit your needs. New Testament, Old Testament, or "books" that were "left out",... whatever. It has been "interpreted so many times over the last few thousand years, how does anyone know which version is correct, or if any of them are ? Remember, those in control, or on the winning side always write or re-write history to suit their needs.

Secondly,... I have to agree with one point, organized Religion served a very different purpose than most think. It WAS and to some extent still is a means of control. Most "extremists" will believe almost anything if stated in the "name of" their Religion,.... and that is true for almost all organized Religions. One has to look no further than the extreme versions of Islam, or Christianity to see it. And of course, they all think their way is the "right" way.

On Health Care,.... Is it so much the ideology that is fueling this fight,... or is it the fact that if the Democrats get this done,... and it works,.... it leaves the Republicans (and they know this) with a wedgie that will most likely never end in our lifetimes !

[Axis Kast]

Still trying to change the subject, I see. Once more, where is your source for this idea that Christianity advocates refusing to give to the poor, so that they may learn self-sufficiency? I'm not going to let you drag me off the point with your usual clever attempts to get me on the defensive by attacking my personality, asshole.

Your question is a canard, since my argument doesn't turn on any one specific rendering of particular passages in the Bible, one way or the other.

I'm not attacking your personality at all, and again, I think you know it. I'm arguing that you tend to view all problems, all disagreements, as having fixed solutions, the strength of which are evident to all people. That's a bad approach to questions of society, culture, and politics, which involve more than a few irrational people who invest in more than a few ideas without any discernible merit to folks like you and I.

[Darth Wong]

I don't care what kind of source material you're referring to; you still haven't named it. And you're still trying to change the subject.

[Axis Kast]

I don't care what kind of source material you're referring to; you still haven't named it. And you're still trying to change the subject.

The subject is whether conservatives who oppose health care as an endeavor that unfairly asks them to reach into their own pockets must not have read the Bible. The likelihood of that - particularly given that the key passages in which Jesus repudiates worldly wealth and instructs poverty are found in the Gospels themselves - is next to nothing.

[Darth Wong]

I don't care what kind of source material you're referring to; you still haven't named it. And you're still trying to change the subject.

The subject is whether conservatives who oppose health care as an endeavor that unfairly asks them to reach into their own pockets must not have read the Bible. The likelihood of that - particularly given that the key passages in which Jesus repudiates worldly wealth and instructs poverty are found in the Gospels themselves - is next to nothing.

So what's your explanation for the massive disconnect, then?

Oh wait, I forgot: you said "You'll be interested to know that a lot has been said, or added to, the Gosepl since the birth of Jesus Christ some two thousand and nine years ago. Many Christians, if not many Mike Wongs, finds it persuasive." Smarmy evasiveness as usual. If you're going to argue that there's something in the Gospel which backs that up, then show me. Otherwise, give me some alternate explanation. What is there? Monumental stupidity? Profound apathy toward their own belief system? Or the kind of selective reading I'm talking about, where they have read parts of the Bible as instructed by their preachers but have never really made the slightest effort to just sit down and read it unfiltered?

[Axis Kast]

Or the kind of selective reading I'm talking about, where they have read parts of the Bible as instructed by their preachers but have never really made the slightest effort to just sit down and read it unfiltered?

They have probably, at some point, read it all - and certainly all of the portions relevant to this argument, which is about charity. Most churches carry their congregations through the whole text, with time. Many Christians do spend hours each week with the Bible, in personal or group study.

You have clearly invested in a specific interpretation. However, you've ignored a variety of mediating factors:

1. Christians have spent years "learning" that there is no demonstrable connection between their tax dollars and utilitarian outcomes of public policy. "The Government" is, by definition, an ineffective engine incapable of delivering cost-effective goods and services. The cost of social intervention is ultimately outweighed by the "leakage" of public monies. Worse, it can be amplified by ideological subversion, as if the liberal proclivities of activist administrators manifest themselves in "death panels."

2. Christians are likely to feel that charity is a private activity, the spiritual value of which is diminished when compulsory. (And that is how they will look at a federal program - as compulsory, rather than a mass expression of morality.)

3. Christians are conservatives, and conservatives are increasingly likely to feel that they can barely keep up with tax hikes themselves. Most of this anger should be redirected toward state and local authorities, but is displaced onto the convenient celebrity of the President.

[Patrick Degan]

The leaders have had plenty of time to see that the social policies they hold to cause a great deal of human misery and have had plenty of time to craft ways to guide their flocks in the direction of reform and justice.

So the only conceivable reason the leaders of these various movements have refused to guide their flocks in the direction of "reform and justice" is because they prioritize increasing their movements' power and increasing human misery is a good way to do that? You seem to be falling into the "libertarian fallacy", assuming that the leaders (in particular) are coldly calculating, self-interested, and rational actors. (I'm also noting a dearth of evidence for your claims.)

"Dearth of evidence for my claims"?!?! History demonstrates the evidence for these claims. What's going on right now in Africa with the Catholic Church is evidence for these claims. Shall it be necessary to point out the many, many times the religious establishment have sided with oligarchy or monarchy to block social reforms which would improve the lot of the common people and for the purpose of "preserving society" i.e. the extant power structure they were integrated into? As Tashbih Sayyed observes in his article "The Islamic Bomb" in the 26 December, 2003 edition of Pakistan Today:

Pakistan is a very different kind of a Muslim country. No Muslim country in the world was founded in the name of Islam. Pakistan did. As such it claims to be the citadel of Islam. Its armed forces are the armies of Islam and it champions the cause of each and every Muslim. Religion is not just its raison d'être but the only guarantee of survival. A system that has failed to provide equal rights to all of its citizens can only depend on a religious totalitarianism. Religion is the only effective weapon in the hands of an oligarchy that does not respect the will of the people to keep the centrifugal forces tamed. Pakistan's armed forces representing the ruling class believe that religion can make the minorities and smaller provinces forget the absence of social justice that keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty and helplessness.

Pakistan is not a natural country. It is composed of regions, sects, ethnic groups and linguistic factions who, in the absence of social justice, have never felt a part of the Pakistani nationhood. It is only the iron hand of the armed forces that has prevented them from seceding. Bangalis, taking advantage of their geography that placed them far away from the military and political center, did secede and established their own country, Bangladesh. This is a very volatile state. A country that is kept together by a fascist religiso-military ideology can never be a productive and positive player in the comity of nations. It will always try to seek alliances with totalitarian regimes.

Pakistan was created for the Muslims of South Asian subcontinent. It was supposed to be a secular Muslim state working for the benefit of its citizens irrespective of their religion, color, ethnicity or creed. But soon after its creation, Islamists who had opposed its creation, hijacked it and declared that the state was founded in the name of Islam and will work to defend and expand the frontiers the faith. The non-Muslims were reduced to the status of second class citizens and the armed forces of Pakistan were declared as the armies of Islam.

Radical Islamists do not believe in the true faith of Islam that preaches equality and social justice. They practice an ideology that believes in persecuting those who do not share their philosophy. The fundamentalists found a ready support in an oligarchy that lacked legitimacy. This oligarchy too was in need of a weapon to perpetuate its rule. They knew that the allegiance of all the citizens cannot be won without establishing a system of social justice, which they did not want. So they opted for a system that has always been the choice of the totalitarian minds. Religion was used to enslave different ethnic and linguistic groups in an artificial unity. Pakistan was declared an Islamic state.

Oligarchy's dependence on religion to sustain their rule forced them to depend more and more on radical Islamic groups. It presented itself as the champion of all Islamic causes. Every issue was now cast in a religious light and the world was either green or ungreen. Although this "Islam" failed to fool the minority groups, it did succeed in winning the support of fundamentalists and religious fanatics from all over the world. From Palestine to Paris, from Indonesia to Indiana and from Kashmir to Karbala, wherever there was religious terrorism, Pakistan found herself defending it. That's why when Pakistan decided to have a nuclear bomb of its own it touted it as an Islamic bomb.

—to name but one example, and that a contemporary one.

Furthermore, this point does not turn upon the black/white fallacy you are pushing here: that the leaders are all either Ernst Stavro Blofeld clones or simply misguided but well-intentioned idiots.

[Darth Wong]

Or the kind of selective reading I'm talking about, where they have read parts of the Bible as instructed by their preachers but have never really made the slightest effort to just sit down and read it unfiltered?

They have probably, at some point, read it all - and certainly all of the portions relevant to this argument, which is about charity. Most churches carry their congregations through the whole text, with time. Many Christians do spend hours each week with the Bible, in personal or group study.

You have clearly invested in a specific interpretation.

Yeah: the one where Jesus says rich men don't enter Heaven. Anyone who doesn't give so much to charity that he reduces his lifestyle to austerity levels is not taking that Gospel charity blather seriously. I already made this point earlier.

However, you've ignored a variety of mediating factors:

1. Christians have spent years "learning" that there is no demonstrable connection between their tax dollars and utilitarian outcomes of public policy. "The Government" is, by definition, an ineffective engine incapable of delivering cost-effective goods and services. The cost of social intervention is ultimately outweighed by the "leakage" of public monies. Worse, it can be amplified by ideological subversion, as if the liberal proclivities of activist administrators manifest themselves in "death panels."

2. Christians are likely to feel that charity is a private activity, the spiritual value of which is diminished when compulsory. (And that is how they will look at a federal program - as compulsory, rather than a mass expression of morality.)

3. Christians are conservatives, and conservatives are increasingly likely to feel that they can barely keep up with tax hikes themselves. Most of this anger should be redirected toward state and local authorities, but is displaced onto the convenient celebrity of the President.

None of this has anything to do with the claim you made earlier, about the Christian belief in the importance of "self-sufficiency" before aid. You're just trying to change the subject. AGAIN.

It's funny how you so often accuse me of being unreasonable for accusing conservatives of habitual dishonesty. With your incredibly evasive behaviour, you have done a very poor job of encouraging any other interpretation.

[Surlethe]

History demonstrates the evidence for these claims. What's going on right now in Africa with the Catholic Church is evidence for these claims. Shall it be necessary to point out the many, many times the religious establishment have sided with oligarchy or monarchy to block social reforms which would improve the lot of the common people and for the purpose of "preserving society" i.e. the extant power structure they were integrated into?

On the contrary, your claim regards the motivation of the leadership. I am not contesting that the religious establishments have perpetually sided with oligarchy and monarchy to block social reform, I am contesting your explanation for why they have done so. And so far, you have failed to provide evidence: one dissenter's take on the situation in Pakistan is not in any way support for your claim, any more than a 9/11 conspiracy nut is evidence for malicious motives in the Bush Administration post-9/11. By the way, your evidence is also not relevant: your claim regards religious, not civil, leadership.

Furthermore, this point does not turn upon the black/white fallacy you are pushing here: that the leaders are all either Ernst Stavro Blofeld clones or simply misguided but well-intentioned idiots.

Excuse me? Black-and-white fallacy? How did you happen to pull that statement from my contest of your implied universal claim regarding the leadership? Remember, the negation of a universal is not a negative universal.

[ThomasP]

For whatever my own interaction with the evangelical-cum-libertarian types is worth, I've never had one ever actually explain to me how Jesus's philosophy of universal love and dislike of the rich jives with the American right-wing outlook.

I've always gotten some handwaving about how churches give plenty to the poor and it's immoral to force others to pay for the needs of others, but it always quickly gets maneuvered back to libertarian rhetoric. They don't seem comfortable delving into the relevant points of Christianity, nor with explaining how such immorality follows from their beliefs.

Which leads me to believe that most of them really haven't examined the topic beyond what the pastor's told them. They believe what they want to believe and appeal to Christianity as their backing.

I'd also be very interested to know where Jesus spoke about self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, assuming such actually exists.

[Surlethe]

By the way, here are some arguments, based on Biblical interpretation, about Capitalism and Mark 10:17-31 in particular:

Short, not particularly persuasive
Glenn Beck
"Freedom Daily" (giving addressed halfway down page 1)
List of Bible quotes supporting various "principles"
A Christian Reconstructionist's take
Bible & Communism
Can a rich man get into heaven? (neutral, but suggests how a conservative might interpret the passage)
"What is the most valuable component of my life?" (sermon on Mk 10:23)
"All things are possible" (also touching on Mk 10)
Biblical justification for gold standard, touches on Mk 10 at bottom of page
And, to top it off, a readable version of Mark 10

I think the best summary of a plausible conservative interpretation of the "eye of a needle" quote is this:

Some think the Bible condemns rich men. Not so.

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Some think the rich cannot enter the kingdom of God. Not so. It is more difficult, because the rich tend to put their trust in riches, instead of trusting in God, and are often not kind to the poor. In fact, again, there are rich men in the true Church, for whom there is specific advice:

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

That is, the Bible does not condemn being rich or command people to give everything to the poor; Jesus was speaking rhetorically to demonstrate that a man's trust must be in God, not anything man-made or material. (Also, depending on how Calvinist the interpreter is, the verse confirms the Calvinist principle that nobody can be saved without God's direct intervention.)

[Axis Kast]

Yeah: the one where Jesus says rich men don't enter Heaven. Anyone who doesn't give so much to charity that he reduces his lifestyle to austerity levels is not taking that Gospel charity blather seriously. I already made this point earlier.

See Surlethe's analysis. The particular passage to which you are referring re: the wealthy is often the subject of heated debate.

None of this has anything to do with the claim you made earlier, about the Christian belief in the importance of "self-sufficiency" before aid. You're just trying to change the subject. AGAIN.

I referred specifically to health care in that instance. Self-sufficiency is at the core of many Protestant teachings, particularly Calvinist ones. Many conservative Christians readily view social programs funded by the government as routes to entitlement, rather than self-improvement. Remember Reagan's "welfare queen"?

[ray245]

I referred specifically to health care in that instance. Self-sufficiency is at the core of many Protestant teachings, particularly Calvinist ones. Many conservative Christians readily view social programs funded by the government as routes to entitlement, rather than self-improvement. Remember Reagan's "welfare queen"?

Which brings us back to the point where people are saying many protestant teachings or Calvinist teachings in the US are essentially contradictory to the message preached by Jesus.

[Axis Kast]

Which brings us back to the point where people are saying many protestant teachings or Calvinist teachings in the US are essentially contradictory to the message preached by Jesus.

My point all along has been that to subscribe to the idea that there is one interpretation from which American Christians are knowingly and happily deviating is incorrect.

Christians interpret the Bible with the help of an enormous number of aids and cues.

[Surlethe]

It seems as though there's a conundrum sort of like the chicken and the egg: a particular interpretation (or class of interpretations) of the Bible will fuel a sociopolitical movement, but at the same time prevailing sociopolitical conditions will spur a particular interpretation (or class of interpretations). So, for instance, the modern antifeminist backlash in evangelical circles is justified by interpreting the Bible a certain way, but at the same time the feminist - or even simply modern - changing of sexual norms provokes that particular interpretation of the Bible by threatening conservatives' Victorian ideals.

[ThomasP]

Self-sufficiency is at the core of many Protestant teachings, particularly Calvinist ones.

Could you post an example of these teachings?

Are they Bible passages or other sources?

[Samuel]

Self-sufficiency is at the core of many Protestant teachings, particularly Calvinist ones.

Could you post an example of these teachings?

Are they Bible passages or other sources?

John Calvin believed in predestination which is the logical outcome of an all knowing God. Therefore if you are doing well in life it is because God wanted you to do so and a sign that you are in the elect, chosen by God to go into heaven.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, here are some arguments, based on Biblical interpretation, about Capitalism and Mark 10:17-31 in particular:

Short, not particularly persuasive
Glenn Beck
"Freedom Daily" (giving addressed halfway down page 1)
List of Bible quotes supporting various "principles"
A Christian Reconstructionist's take
Bible & Communism
Can a rich man get into heaven? (neutral, but suggests how a conservative might interpret the passage)
"What is the most valuable component of my life?" (sermon on Mk 10:23)
"All things are possible" (also touching on Mk 10)
Biblical justification for gold standard, touches on Mk 10 at bottom of page
And, to top it off, a readable version of Mark 10

I think the best summary of a plausible conservative interpretation of the "eye of a needle" quote is this:

Some think the Bible condemns rich men. Not so.

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Some think the rich cannot enter the kingdom of God. Not so. It is more difficult, because the rich tend to put their trust in riches, instead of trusting in God, and are often not kind to the poor. In fact, again, there are rich men in the true Church, for whom there is specific advice:

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

That is, the Bible does not condemn being rich or command people to give everything to the poor; Jesus was speaking rhetorically to demonstrate that a man's trust must be in God, not anything man-made or material. (Also, depending on how Calvinist the interpreter is, the verse confirms the Calvinist principle that nobody can be saved without God's direct intervention.)

That, if anything, only confirms that such interpretations are inherently dishonest. To use statements like that (which do not even directly contradict Mark 10) as the springboard for an interpretation which completely repudiates Jesus direct answer to the question in Mark 10 is about as honest an "interpretation" as AG Alberto Gonzalez' interpretation of habeus corpus, or the fundies' pro-theocracy interpretation of the First Amendment. In effect, they're saying "Jesus' answer when asked how to enter Heaven is actually wrong because in this other area, we think he said things which could be interpreted other ways".

[ThomasP]

Self-sufficiency is at the core of many Protestant teachings, particularly Calvinist ones.

Could you post an example of these teachings?

Are they Bible passages or other sources?

John Calvin believed in predestination which is the logical outcome of an all knowing God. Therefore if you are doing well in life it is because God wanted you to do so and a sign that you are in the elect, chosen by God to go into heaven.

Right, but suggesting that this is support for the right-wing libertarian-ish stance on "personal responsibility" is stretching things just a wee bit, in my view.

These people aren't just saying "oh well, God wants those dirty poor folks to be poor". They're actively saying that "we shouldn't help those that are less fortunate". I don't see those statements as being equivalent, though I suppose I can see how some would/could conflate them.

[Samuel]

These people aren't just saying "oh well, God wants those dirty poor folks to be poor". They're actively saying that "we shouldn't help those that are less fortunate". I don't see those statements as being equivalent, though I suppose I can see how some would/could conflate them.

That was Calvin's stance. If they are unfortunate it is because God wanted things to be that way.

[ThomasP]

These people aren't just saying "oh well, God wants those dirty poor folks to be poor". They're actively saying that "we shouldn't help those that are less fortunate". I don't see those statements as being equivalent, though I suppose I can see how some would/could conflate them.

That was Calvin's stance. If they are unfortunate it is because God wanted things to be that way.

So? The people making the "no welfare/UHC/<insert socialist policy>" arguments will also in the same breath claim that the church gives plenty of money and help to the poor.

They aren't operating on a purely Calvinist doctrine, so it makes no sense to appeal to that as the source of their outlook.

[Axis Kast]

That, if anything, only confirms that such interpretations are inherently dishonest. To use statements like that (which do not even directly contradict Mark 10) as the springboard for an interpretation which completely repudiates Jesus direct answer to the question in Mark 10 is about as honest an "interpretation" as AG Alberto Gonzalez' interpretation of habeus corpus, or the fundies' pro-theocracy interpretation of the First Amendment. In effect, they're saying "Jesus' answer when asked how to enter Heaven is actually wrong because in this other area, we think he said things which could be interpreted other ways".

Complete arrogance. Once again, you ignore the significant possibility that Christians have alternative interpretations of that same passage.

To you, Christian failure to support universal health care is moral abdication, but most American Christians don't apparently share your point of view. This doesn't mean that you're so right, they must be knowingly flaunting Jesus' instruction.

The linguistic validity of the passage in question is usually disputed. The word "camel" could also be translated, in the original Greek, as "a thread of camel's hair," in which case, the proposition of putting it through the eye of a needle would be challenging, but not impossible. This lends itself directly to Surlethe's offer of other possible interpretations about riches.

You are, of course, free to complain that your interpretation of the Bible and those of Christians are inconsistent. What good that does you, I don't know at all.