Observations in Contradictions: Part 2

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In Part 1 we are exploring the question of the Republican claim on the Christian base as it applies to why Christian voters believe that the Republican Party is the affiliation that represents their Christian beliefs.

In Part 2 I would like to explore the economic implications of the same Christian base ties to the Republican Party and why it is that they believe the Republican Party is the one that a) fits their beliefs and b) has their best economic interests at heart. (This requires the basic initial belief that the Republican Party does have a strong Christian vote, but feel free to challenge that.)

Over the last couple of weeks I have become aware of a couple of publications that I believe shed some light on this subject. If we examine them I believe we will get a healthy discussion going.

The first, is a speech presented by Bill Moyers and published here http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm

Excerpt: (Small excerpt, I encourage you to read the whole article)

"Household economics is not the only area where inequality is growing in America. Equality doesn't mean equal incomes, but a fair and decent society where money is not the sole arbiter of status or comfort. In a fair and just society, the commonwealth will be valued even as individual wealth is encouraged.

In my time we went to public schools. My brother made it to college on the GI bill. When I bought my first car for $450 I drove to a subsidized university on free public highways and stopped to rest in state-maintained public parks. This is what I mean by the commonwealth, the notion of America as a shared project has been the central engine of our national experience.

Until now. I don't have to tell you that a profound transformation is occurring in America: the balance between wealth and the commonwealth is being upended. By design. Deliberately.

The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." This is a lie. What's happening to them is , and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us.

The second is an article that addresses Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" which I believe explains some of the Christian thinking on economics. http://pass.maths.org.uk/issue14/features/smith/

Excerpt: (Again, please don't rely on just the excerpt. The theory is larger than this)

"Adam Smith set out the mechanism by which he felt economic society operated. Each individual strives to become wealthy "intending only his own gain" but to this end he must exchange what he owns or produces with others who sufficiently value what he has to offer; in this way, by division of labour and a free market, public interest is advanced.

Smith was profoundly religious, and saw the "invisible hand" as the mechanism by which a benevolent God administered a universe in which human happiness was maximized

Here is a description of the way Smith imagined the universe operates:

1. There is a benevolent deity who administers the world in such a way as to maximise human happiness.

2. In order to do this he has created humans with a nature that leads them to act in a certain way.

3. The world as we know it is pretty much perfect, and everyone is about equally happy. In particular, the rich are no happier than the poor.

4. Although this means we should all be happy with our lot in life, our nature (which, remember, was created by God for the purpose of maximising happiness) leads us to think that we would be happier if we were wealthier.

5. This is a good thing, because it leads us to struggle to become wealthier, thus increasing the sum total of human happiness via the mechanisms of exchange and division of labour.

(End Excerpt)

Ready to discuss? Let's keep it civil and engage in a thoughtful discussion, please.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 879 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Re: Observations in Contradictions: Part 2

squinney wrote:

The second is an article that addresses Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" which I believe explains some of the Christian thinking on economics. http://pass.maths.org.uk/issue14/features/smith/

Excerpt: (Again, please don't rely on just the excerpt. The theory is larger than this)

Helen Joyce's writing seems to be more a bit of wistful imagination that anything else. Adam Smith never made any such claims or assertions as she's laid out and according to his own words the "invisible hand" is enlightend self-interest - not any deity.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own interest."

0 Replies

BBB
bookmark

0 Replies

Perhaps I was injecting into my reading of the Adam Smith article my familiarity with "As a Man Thinketh" and "Think and Grow Rich" which to me involves an "Invisible Hand" (diety) that would appeal to those of faith. All three, if my memory serves, were written at a time that would reflect a coomon thinking for that era. A modern example would be the teachings of Dr. Dyer.

0 Replies

When did the democrats start avoiding the christian vote? I seem to have missed that.

0 Replies

This could explain the Republicans using issues like abortion and Gay marriage to give the "impression" of their being Christian. However there is another agenda at work.

Quote:

Second Principle: Power of Religion

According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Source

Religion has been used in politics since the first days of the Catholic Church. The church itself was born out of political expediency by Constatine. The Church leaders for hunderds of years have used religion to control the masses and the political agendas of the day.

So there's always been a relationship between Religion and politics. What's disconcerning is that in this day and age 3,000 years later we are still seeing the use of the church to guide the political hand. Even when he tout our Democracy and all that stands for many in the same breath will speak of our "Christian Nation", and if you truly believe in Democracy and what the founding fathers fought for then you wouldn't dare utter such things as "Christian Nation" for we are built on many religions and cultures.

Granted the Church can be a great political foe or friend and that's something that should greatly concern Americans. For years it seemed we were moving away from the this that we understood the premise of Church and State being separate but since 9.11 which installed much fear in Americans some are ready to chuck that away and return to the dark days of the Middle Age.

I don't think any supreme being is part of our fate to control the world, invade countries or pass judgement. I resent that people who call themselves Christian thinks that God will hear their prayers for their favorite football team or Nascar driver. How self centered we are to think that out of the universe that God's only concern is US and only us. Where is God for the 10,000 dead Iraqi people? Where is God for Africa where millions are being killed each day in genocides that sweep through that contienent like the plague?

What bothers me the most is the selfishness in which Christians use God for political gain. If God is the all mighty and part of fate then why should humans think they are free to judge? If a woman decides to have an abortion shouldn't that be between her and her God? Where do YOU play a part in that? If two Gay's vow to love and commit to each other how is that YOUR business to decide if God thinks it's ok? If God has a problem with any "political" issue then why not leave it to God to deal with? When you walk around claiming to do God's work then you take on the role of supreme being. If God has a problem with Gay's or woman who have abortions then won't God be the one to deal with it? If you truly believe God is the ultimate judge, the supreme being then why don't you trust God to do the right thing?

Plus who's to say that God doesn't want abortion legal, is it in the bible? Who say's God doesn't want Gay's to marry? Couldn't you use the same arguments that God is behind the movment to legtimize Gays' in marriage because we are all God's children? Jesus didn't discriminate.

I'm tired of the arrogance of the Church leaders. God could be behind the movement to evolve and change social standards just as easily as she could be behind supporting the agenda of the religious right. IMO God would be more pissed off at those who dare speak for her then those who love and live with a true heart.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

When did the democrats start avoiding the christian vote? I seem to have missed that.

you have to come up for air occasonally.....

0 Replies

Moyer's speech is a bit confusing and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. He rambles on about what Jefferson meant when he wrote the Decleration of Independence and then makes up his own assupmtions which, IMO are unsupportable. (One of the two possible conclusions he comes to was that Jefferson was somehow referring to Sally Hennings and her children which it is believed Jefferson fathered but when were those children born? From what I can tell only one of the 6 was born prior to Jefferson writing those words.)

But Moyer totally misses the intent of the words IMO, to try to piece together his own point. The only comment he makes that I agree with completely is :

Quote:

"We have been subjected to what the Commonwealth Foundation calls "a fanatical drive to dismantle the political institutions, the legal and statutory canons, and the intellectual and cultural frameworks that have shaped public responsibility for social harms arising from the excesses of private power." From land, water and other natural resources, to media and the broadcast and digital spectrums, to scientific discovery and medical breakthroughs, and to politics itself, a broad range of the American commons is undergoing a powerful shift toward private and corporate control."

While I don't think I'd use the term "fanatical" there has been a shift to dismantle much of "social framework" that was built. Mostly because that framework was riddled with graft and corruption and those with a vested interest in it weren't willing to do anything about it. Moyer's should understand the concept completely. To quote Mr. Jefferson "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

0 Replies

Re: Observations in Contradictions: Part 2

squinney wrote:

In Part 2 I would like to explore the economic implications of the same Christian base ties to the Republican Party and why it is that they believe the Republican Party is the one that a) fits their beliefs and b) has their best economic interests at heart. (This requires the basic initial belief that the Republican Party does have a strong Christian vote, but feel free to challenge that.)

This is my contribution to the debate concerning contradictions.

WARNING: My contribution might offend some Christians or others. So, if you're easily offended, avert your sensitive eyes now!

In choosing a political affiliation, perhaps people are plagued by the stereotypes and generalizations that run rampant.

In general, people believe the Republican party embraces capitalism. Many people believe that you build a strong country by building wealth in the hands of private citizens. (Reaganomics; trickle down theory.) Some people believe, if you don't work hard to earn a living, you are undeserving as a human being.

In general, people believe the Democratic party embraces socialism (regarded by many as charity to the undeserving through government funded programs). Some people (I don't know how many) believe that you can't build a strong country if you redistribute the wealth to those "welfare degenerates" whom they believe just sit on their butt all day, have indiscriminate sex, pop out more degenerate babies like cats have litters, and earn nothing and contribute nothing to society.

(Oh. Could it be that people are judgmental of others and fail to recognize their own faults at the same time? another contradiction?)

In general, people believe that a Republican leader is strong and will infuse the economy with vitality. Many people believe a Democratic leader is weak (with a bleeding heart) and will drain the economy by funding social programs.

If we presume that Christians gravitate to the Republican party because the party is less charitable with public funds and will place more money in the hands of private parties (e.g., billions of federal dollars awarded to Cheney's Haliburton Co. to be trickled down to the masses), then this is indeed a contradiction because we normally view Christians as being charitable persons. At least this is how Christians want us to view them.

I personally think Christians (of whatever denomination or sect) are the most uncharitable, self-centered, self-important people on the face of the earth. It is rare indeed for them to give to the less fortunate without some self-serving motive. If they control the political power and the wealth, this allows them to attach holier-than-thou moral strings to everything they do and still rake in the cash for themselves.

With money and power, they can buy the White House. (But can they purchase and bully their way into heaven?)

This might be an oversimplified view of Christians; but maybe the hypocrites ought to start identifying themselves, blush with shame, and ask God for his/her forgiveness. Maybe they don't own the gates to heaven after all.

0 Replies

Debra - Thank you. I think you have contributed greatly to the theory I was proposing.

If the "Invisible Hand" (ie Deity) is what Christians believe in, then God will provide to each as He sees fit and to each in accordance to their work. But, as you have pointed out, caring for the "social degenerates" is actually Biblical. Not doing so would be considered sin. Therein lies the contradiction in Christians choosing the Republican Party, IMO.

Perhaps it is their preference to choose for themselves which "needy" they support and do not want the government making such decisions?

I would agree that the larger fundamentalist organizations would prefer Republicans due to the amount of money they can get into their own hands, especially now with the "Faith Based Initiative." Yet, I wonder how this applies to the individual Christian and how they think it benefits them directly.

0 Replies

I think you are taking 2 independent phenomena and inadvertently tying them together as a cause and effect.

There are plenty of "Christians" on both coasts that don't follow the fundamentalist line and they are seldom complained about in terms of political influence. The fundamentalists have generally been chased out of CA and the East coast from Boston down to DC and they've developed/landed mostly in the midwest and south. That's strictly a social and geographical phenomena.

The second item; If you map that against the "Red States" and "Blue States" you'll find most of the fundementalists in the red states.

If you then look at per capita Federal spending by state you'd find a pretty even mix of spending amongst the red and blue states. Extrapolate that data further and you'll find that the blue states are disproportinately at the high end of the "tax burden per capita" and teh red states are at the low end. (i.e. the average person in CT pays $10,406 in income taxes while the average person in Mississippi pays $3,869).

Mix the data from the two together and the red states uniformaly come out on the fat end of the stick. Only 8 blue states get back more money from the Federal government than they pay in and 2 of those (NM and PA) were just barely blue states in 2000. There are 25 red states that get back more than they pay in.

If you graph the last set of figures back to 1968 you'll find that every time there has been a Republican in the Whitehouse the red states increased their share of the Federal spending and when a Democrat has moved into the Whitehouse the red states loose some while the blue states gain. There is a significant economic advantage to being in a red state when it comes to Federal spending.

Since the fundamentalists are in the states that get back the most in Federal spending per capita, it would seem that voting Republican IS in their economic self-interest.

0 Replies

Bully tactics

squinney wrote:

I would agree that the larger fundamentalist organizations would prefer Republicans due to the amount of money they can get into their own hands, especially now with the "Faith Based Initiative." Yet, I wonder how this applies to the individual Christian and how they think it benefits them directly.

In another thread, a poster indicated that he would support the candidate or party that protected or advanced his religious views. He noted that he is against abortion. Apparently, he votes for candidates who will work to pass laws and to stack the courts with like-minded judges in an effort to prevent women who may not share his religious ideology from having a choice about this highly private and personal matter.

I suppose that individual Christians gravitate to the Republican party because they perceive the party as the political entity most likely to impose their religious beliefs and values upon society as a whole. However, imposing one's views on others through bullying tactics is contrary to a benevolent Christian ideology.

The Republican Party can be perceived as trying to "fix" the country from the top down. From the top down perspective, our elected officials try to control the economy through trickle down economics and imposing standards upon the populace (without adequately addressing the problems the populace may have in meeting those standards).

The Democratic Party can be perceived as trying to "fix" the country from the bottom up. From the bottom up perspective, our elected officials try to improve the economy by building its very foundation through education and social programs to assist people to become productive members of society.

A few years ago when I worked with juveniles in the juvenile justice system and the school system, I ran across a cartoon that affected me tremendously. It pictured a large prison complex filled with many buildings all labeled "jale." In the foreground, two prison guards are lamenting the misspelled signs on all the buildings. One guard said to other, "Maybe we should have spent a little more money on education."

The "tough on crime" people want to solve the problem of dysfunctional people by hiring more law enforcement officers, hiring more judges, hiring more prosecutors, building more jails, building more prisons, and making more laws for tougher punishments.

Our society spends a lot of money from the top down trying to solve problems after the fact. So many people are wasting their lives away in jail. Our society would be a whole lot better off if we would roll up our sleeves and rebuild our foundation from the bottom up. America may be a gold mine of opportunity, but what good is a gold mine if your only digging tool is a straw that can never be grasped? We must turn the tide and do everything in our power to give our youth the proper tools they need to become law abiding, contributing members of society.

0 Replies

Well said Debra

0 Replies

Observations in Contradictions: Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know