The American paradox of Christianity and capitalism

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As long as you can do it without embracing Marxism, fine. But, the terms, "Social Justice" and "Liberation Theology", as defined by their proponents, actively embrace Marxism as an ideology.

Social justice shouldn't be a political ideology but rather a framework to structure public policy. You can see such policies better implemented in Western Europe, where countries like Germany, which are largely Christian, believe it is a moral obligation to take care of people in need. You can hear that sentiment echoed by their political leaders.

[TigerTeddyBear 26]

Stephen... as usual you are right on the money with this thread. Thank you for fighting the good fight. The lack of social justice is the infection that weakens all societies. It's sad how the same people defend the wrong on a constant basis.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Social justice shouldn't be a political ideology but rather a framework to structure public policy. You can see such policies better implemented in Western Europe, where countries like Germany, which are largely Christian, believe it is a moral obligation to take care of people in need. You can hear that sentiment echoed by their political leaders.

I agree. In terms of human life and the protection there of, our society should provide a basic level of care.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree. In terms of human life and the protection there of, our society should provide a basic level of care.

The irony is, that many of our current policies do in fact address those issues. Things like Food Stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, Section 8, all are designed to help those in need. Without Food Stamps, we would have had literally millions of Americans starving in this country in the last couple of years during this Recession. Private charities have reported that they were having to turn people away - they simply cannot support everyone in need.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wouldn't mind feeding the world's starving masses, if the masses were not so massive. Perhaps we could include something that would render the males impotent, and the females infertile.

Global Food Supply Near the Breaking Point

Rising population, water shortages, climate change, and the growing costs of fossil fuel-based fertilisers point to a calamitous shortfall in the world's grain supplies in the near future, according to Canada's National Farmers Union (NFU).

Thirty years ago, the oceans were teeming with fish, but today more people rely on farmers to produce their food than ever before, says Stewart Wells, NFU's president.

In five of the last six years, global population ate significantly more grains than farmers produced.

And with the world's farmers unable to increase food production, policymakers must address the "massive challenges to the ability of humanity to continue to feed its growing numbers", Wells said in a statement.

There isn't much land left on the planet that can be converted into new food-producing areas, notes Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington-based non-governmental organisation. And what is left is of generally poor quality or likely to turn into dust bowls if heavily exploited, Brown told IPS.

Unlike the Green Revolution in the 1960s, when improved strains of wheat, rice, maize and other cereals dramatically boosted global food production, there are no technological magic bullets waiting in the wings.

"Biotechnology has made little difference so far," he said.

Even if the long-promised biotech advances in drought, cold, and disease-resistance come about in the next decade, they will boost yields little more than five percent globally, Brown said.

"There's not nearly enough discussion about how people will be fed 20 years from now," he said.

Hunger is already a stark and painful reality for more than 850 million people, including 300 million children. How can the number of hungry not explode when one, two and possibly three billion more people are added to the global population?

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33268

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I wouldn't mind feeding the world's starving masses, if the masses were not so massive. Perhaps we could include something that would render the males impotent, and the females infertile.

A better idea is to try and get local economies to be more self sufficient through sustainable agriculture. One of Haiti's problems is that it is one of the poorest countries and relies heavily on food imports instead of growing most of their food locally. A lasting remnant from the days of slavery and cash crops.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A better idea is to try and get local economies to be more self sufficient through sustainable agriculture. One of Haiti's problems is that it is one of the poorest countries and relies heavily on food imports instead of growing most of their food locally. A lasting remnant from the days of slavery and cash crops.

That still does not deal with overpopulation. A cursory study of the demographics will demonstrate that those folks with the greatest need procreate faster than those best able to fill those needs. Even high school biology students know that rats breed faster when there is a ready supply of food, until the food supply is exhausted, and starvation reduces the population again.

ETA: We do it to our pets, why not do it for the poor and starving? Spay or neuter or no welfare check.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[james&olya 1,121]

:thumbs:

Providing health care for all doesn't translate into giving all your money to the government. Second, the money goes to your neighbors, the ones Jesus said to love as you love yourself. Jesus also said, "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

If we turned our backs to those in need in this country through policy, how is that not any different from Jesus' parable that, "whatsoever you do the least of these, you do unto me?" We are individually responsible for the kinds of policies our country has in the way we treat ourselves and each other in the context of the Gospel. There are lots of evangelical Christians who do recognize how that responsibility translates into public policy, it's just unfortunate that many Christians on the Right focus on policies against things like homosexuality (individual morality), rather than social justice (public morality). In fact, many of them think social justice is just some kind of communist-speak vs. an understanding of Jesus' message.

[james&olya 1,121]

Government - 'of the people, by the people, for the people'! When the RWN's attack 'government', they attack the people that make up this country and that have democratically elected their government. Voting for policies and paying taxes to provide services such as medical care for all, including 'the least' among us is exactly in line with what we have been admonished to do by the Jesus Christ in the christian bible. If we have no say in government than we have no responsibility for its actions. But when we have a vote we may not leave our personal morals or religion at the door. What our government does in our name IS our responsibility!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That still does not deal with overpopulation. A cursory study of the demographics will demonstrate that those folks with the greatest need procreate faster than those best able to fill those needs. Even high school biology students know that rats breed faster when there is a ready supply of food, until the food supply is exhausted, and starvation reduces the population again.

ETA: We do it to our pets, why not do it for the poor and starving? Spay or neuter or no welfare check.

Societies where women are educated and work outside the home have much lower birthrates.

[^_^ 5,021]

That's because when women go to college they turn into feminist lesbians.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Government - 'of the people, by the people, for the people'! When the RWN's attack 'government', they attack the people that make up this country and that have democratically elected their government. Voting for policies and paying taxes to provide services such as medical care for all, including 'the least' among us is exactly in line with what we have been admonished to do by the Jesus Christ in the christian bible. If we have no say in government than we have no responsibility for its actions. But when we have a vote we may not leave our personal morals or religion at the door. What our government does in our name IS our responsibility!

I understand the rugged individualism that many on the Right aspire to - it is a noble idea. How that translates though into public policy is where there is a great ideological divide in this country. The Left wants to provide opportunities for all while the Right thinks such opportunities can't or shouldn't come from public policies like college funding or healthcare for everyone.

Edited January 18, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[james&olya 1,121]

As long as you can do it without embracing Marxism, fine. But, the terms, "Social Justice" and "Liberation Theology", as defined by their proponents, actively embrace Marxism as an ideology.

So do you throw out Christianity if it is concluded that there are socialistic elements within its theology? Anti-marxism trumps basic Christianity?

[^_^ 5,021]