From Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

A reader writes:

"I've been reading your coverage of Obama lately, as well as the rest of the of the Democrats statements on faith. I am my brother's keeper, feed the hungry, tend the poor, generally look out for each other; it all sounds like the mission of the Church to me. Has the church failed that miserably that we now have to look to secular government, which is fundamentally less efficient than individuals looking out for each other, to fix the woes of society? If the answer is yes, that saddens me.

What also saddens me is the number of young Christians who are jumping on the band wagon. Sure, we should be doing all the things Obama preaches; but why should we create a massive government to do them? Why can't we just go out and tend the sick, feed the poor, look after the widow, etc? Even Christians have forgotten this personal, Christian responsibility, an idea that can exist very well with Republicanism. It seems that my generation has truly abandoned the Church to its fate. And the sad part is, maybe, for now, that's the best option."

The problem with Christianity for those who seek earthly power is that Jesus explicitly renounced such power. Socialism and left-liberalism and "compassionate conservative" are really devices with which the state assumes the moral obligations of the individual - and increasingly robs the individual of the resources to be charitable herself. Christianism - of both left and right - is not just a variation of Christianity. It's an attempt to coopt Christianity to empower the political leader. That's why the politicians like it: it gives them the moral highground, and more money, and eventually more power. All of which leads to less freedom and less genuine faith.

That's interesting, I don't think I've ever seen socialism, left-liberalism, and compassionate conservatism grouped together! Funny.


I'd say that is is most important for individuals to help each other first. Much like how in the field a team of Marines will each look after each other, and so by collective effort the entire team is protected. People should be both motivated to, and empowered (meaning free & able) to help each other. By the way, this is the opposite of objectivist theory. Never knew an objectivist who survived in the field!

Then, the government has a role too, a two-fold role in my view. One, as a backstop, where they are able to help people that slip through the cracks. We have a large and complicated society, so people are just gonna need more than what they earn and what their friends can help with. Two, the government can provide certain services to the people better, the large stuff that everybody needs. It's like the economy of scale. Healthcare, defense, etc.

Free-marketers and objectivists will reject this, and they're welcome to debate it. I agree that the people need to be further empowered and the market, the corporations, less. People have an inherent right to exist, not corporations. Government efforts shoudl be directed to help people rise, not corporations. Money should constantly flow (rapidly downward and slowly back up), and corporations should continualy rise and fall.

(IMHO) Many problems in America are due to the government focusing on corporations, thinking they are the entities to be "back-stopped." Companies will help people, the government, and each other. No. Empower the people with money and opportunity and they will form companies as need, reform them, and kill them as needed too. People will also help each other a lot more if actually empowered to do so.

I probably went off topic a lot here.......uh, sorry. The original post was about charity by the religious? Hmm. I kind of look at big religion and big churches like I do corporations.

Jesus was the original Socialist.

In a democracy (which didn't exist at the time of Christ), the government supposedly reflects the values of the people. This is precisely what it is doing. Since the values of Christianity aren't being reflected, what does this tell you about the values of "Christians"?

Christianity is always co-opted by the culture in which it finds itself. Like Ghandi said, "If I ever saw Christianity in practice, I might convert".

The best description of Christianity in practice is in the Book of Acts. They were collective communities holding all things in common...just like monasteries do.

A monastery is really just a miniature "nation" within a nation and functions as such. One monk doesn't live in grandeur munching on imported cheeses while another lives under a lean-to munching on celery. Resources are distributed equally, educational opportunites are distributed equally, clothing is distributed equally, etc. Either we all starve or we all thrive. That is how a monastic "nation" functions.

My own functioned governmentally as a democratic council of all members with a dictatorial abbot who could be removed from office in 5 minutes if he exceeded his purpose or abused his authority.

And most monasteries don't reflect all the values of Christ. They get co-opted to the extent they deal with the world outside of themselves.

Christians lost their way 1,900 years ago.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Sure, we should be doing all the things Obama preaches; but why should we create a massive government to do them?

This writer must be deaf, dumb and blind because we already have truly massive government after six years of Republican rule... without "all those things Obama preaches".

The other thing the writer is confused about is what gives someone, even politicians, "the moral high ground" as this writer seems to think that "Christianism... gives politicians the moral high ground". Then, are we to believe that atheists, or Jews, or Muslims, or Hindu (or anyone not Christian) have not a moral high ground?

Finally, it is interesting that the writer is hand wringing over the Democratic contenders messages of "help one another" yet has no mention of the Republican contenders constant messaging on abortion, stem cells, and the holy war on terror, etc... which also mix religion with politics.

The writer assumes that should the state be charged to help "the least among us", that we would be "robbed" of our personal moral obligations to help our brothers and sisters and thereby our faith is less genuine. Well, it takes some real pretzel logic to arrive at that point.

As my friend, an atheist, would tell you, "you don't need faith to just do the right thing, to help someone in need".

quote:

Originally posted by polycarp:
In a democracy (which didn't exist at the time of Christ), the government supposedly reflects the values of the people. This is precisely what it is doing. Since the values of Christianity aren't being reflected, what does this tell you about the values of "Christians"?

Christianity is always co-opted by the culture in which it finds itself. Like Ghandi said, "If I ever saw Christianity in practice, I might convert".

The best description of Christianity in practice is in the Book of Acts. They were collective communities holding all things in common...just like monasteries do.

A monastery is really just a miniature "nation" within a nation and functions as such. One monk doesn't live in grandeur munching on imported cheeses while another lives under a lean-to munching on celery. Resources are distributed equally, educational opportunites are distributed equally, clothing is distributed equally, etc. Either we all starve or we all thrive. That is how a monastic "nation" functions.

My own functioned governmentally as a democratic council of all members with a dictatorial abbot who could be removed from office in 5 minutes if he exceeded his purpose or abused his authority.

And most monasteries don't reflect all the values of Christ. They get co-opted to the extent they deal with the world outside of themselves.

Christians lost their way 1,900 years ago.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

AMEN!!