Evolution does not favor selfishness

[woolfe9998]

I'm aware of them. They really have little to do with the merits of her philosophy. There are many legitimate criticisms of objectivism, but slurs against its creator are not among them -- especially when they come from someone who consistently demonstrates a lack of understanding of that which he is trashing.

P.S. Libertarianism and objectivism are not the same thing, and them being lumped together is usually an indicator that the one making such comments is not particularly well-informed about either. In Craig's case, it's one of many such indicators.

I have trouble not seeing the connection between her philosophy and her fawning over Hickman. The parallel is excruciatingly clear: the fascination with "extraordinary" and superior individuals who are stifled by government and social convention. I went through a period of reading Rand, both her fiction and her non-fiction. I already felt her work lacked a real moral underpinning. To me this explains a lot about how and why her philosophy developed the way it did. The sociopath - one who lacks empathy for other human beings isn't the problem - the problem is a society of the ordinary and pedestrian who condemns the extraordinary individual. Hickman to Rand was a projection of her self. Her philosophy was a rationalization of her own moral shortcomings.

Other issues of her personal life I have less concern about because their relationship to her philosophy is less obvious and direct.

As for libertarianism and objectivism not being the same thing, that is true. However, it is hard to deny that Rand has been the single most influential figure in American libertarian thought. Can you think of another person whose influence on libertarianism comes even close?

 

[Caravaggio]

There's a difference between being a "fan" of an individual and a rational assessment of his or her philosophy

To call Ayn Rand a philosopher is to elevate her to a level way beyond her calling. She was a Hollywood screenwriter with some influential friends. If she was a philosopher of merit, why are her ideas so rarely discussed by academic philosophers?

Eccentric and downright mentally ill people have been the originators of much creativity over the centuries.

And a whole heap of windy BS. Newton was smart and he also believed in alchemy. But his "Optics" was a superb original study. Are you suggesting that Ayn Rand is in that league? Where is the real science which saves her tattered reputation?

It's also engaging and thought-provoking. There's a reason AS is one of the most widely-read books in human history.

All of the above would apply to the novels of J K Rowling. What are her particular thoughts that provoke you?

you don't understand what fascism is

I shall pass over the barely concealed arrogance of that challenge and ask you to explain what YOU understand by fascism.
Meanwhile, my understanding is informed by the Oxford English Dictionary and the work of Theo Adorno, a German Jew who was thrown out of Frankfurt by the Nazis. He went to Stanford and carried out the work which became the classic study of fascist ideology.
The OED describes fascism as an anti communist movement with authoritarian ideals. Rand was an extremely authoritarian anti-communist with an obsession about masculinity and the power of leaders.
These criteria fulfil the features used to define authoritarian fascism by Adorno and his colleagues. See the F-scale set out on page 255-257 of volume 1 of the 1964 Wiley edition of "The Authoritarian Personality".

Yes -- she is often criticized for not being able to live up to the standards that she espoused. And that criticism is fair, but it doesn't change the validity of her political philosophy except in terms of an assessment of its practicality. I agree that her inability to live in a manner consistent with her goals says something about how possible it would be to set up a society in the manner she describes.

Please, a philosophy which cannot even be followed by its founder is legitimately called a failed philosophy.

Rand had contempt for the ordinary person in the street. She saw herself, early on at least, as an elite independent and free-thinking super woman. She died of lung cancer having sought all the state aid that she could get (Medicare and social security, see Wiki)

I fail to understand why you like her so but I note that Barry Goldwater and Alan Greenspan were also big fans.
I also think that she plagiarised some of Hayek's ideas about economics (see Road to Serfdom) and re-packaged them in novel form. They make more sense in the original.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The parallel is excruciatingly clear: the fascination with "extraordinary" and superior individuals who are stifled by government and social convention.

I'm sure there are plenty of parallels. But that's somewhat the point -- things can have parallels without being identical.

I don't know the whole story about Rand and Hickman, and frankly don't see that it matters. Her ideas should be judged on their own merits, and dismissing her entirely because of "fawning over a serial killer" (or whatever) really makes her point for her.

When someone brings up the way Rand felt about something and it is dismissed by someone on the left with a comment like "evil sociopath", I see that as pretty similar to those on the right who say that we shouldn't listen to Al Gore on global warming because he has a big house.

As for libertarianism and objectivism not being the same thing, that is true. However, it is hard to deny that Rand has been the single most influential figure in American libertarian thought. Can you think of another person whose influence on libertarianism comes even close?

I don't really see her as influential, to be honest. She's somewhat of a folk hero because she's gotten a lot of attention. But I don't think she's really defined a great deal of libertarian philosophy, which is part of why there's a schism between these somewhat similar groups.

To call Ayn Rand a philosopher is to elevate her to a level way beyond her calling. She was a Hollywood screenwriter with some influential friends. If she was a philosopher of merit, why are her ideas so rarely discussed by academic philosophers?

Did I say she was a "philosopher of merit"? No. Did I even call her a "philosopher" at all? No.

The word "philosophy" has many meanings. I have a personal philosophy; I am not a philosopher. In the case of Rand it's rather obvious that she did have a particular worldview or philosophy, whether you like it or not. You're simply engaging, once again, in ad hominem hand-waving and appeals to authority because it's easier than actually discussing what she said.

And a whole heap of windy BS.

More hand-waving. My point stands -- we don't judge invalid the creations of bad people just because they were bad people, unless we're using that as an excuse to dismiss that which we'd rather not talk about.

All of the above would apply to the novels of J K Rowling. What are her particular thoughts that provoke you?

... and we're done.

For every person who mindlessly worships Ayn Rand I run into at least one person like you, people who apparently hate Rand beyond the point of rational discussion.

 

[Caravaggio]

... and we're done.

Not waving but drowning, it seems.

I note that you bailed-out of any discussion of her authoritarian ideology and behaviour towards those in her group.
Your defence of Rand consisted mostly of special pleading. You kept referring to her "philosophy" but it seems your understanding of the word "philosophy" is so imprecise it would include virtually any set of ramblings by the local bar room pontificator.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

...ramblings by the local bar room pontificator.

Well, if the "local bar room pontificator" was able to actually make meaningful arguments about why he or she did or did not agree with someone's philosophy, then that individual would be more worth spending time having a discussion with than someone who can only toss epithets around. Every one of your posts consists primarily of snarky remarks and putdowns, so there's really nothing to "bail out" of here. Anyone can dismiss anyone's views by calling them "drivel" or comparing the originator to Harry Potter, and that's apparently all you're interested in.

Furthermore, your suggestion that the Rand's worldview was in any way akin to fascism -- despite everyone knowing that it was entirely oriented around the value and rights of the individual over the state -- is the single most absurd and ill-informed comment I have read about Rand in the 30 years since I discovered her existence. There's no basis for having a discussion about it because the idea is nonsense on its face and you've provided no reason for me to consider it as anything more than yet another ad hominem.

 

[destrekor]

Right, in evolutionary terms there is no "quid pro quo." If we're talking about "altruism" in that sense, it's actually instinctive to compromise one's own survival in order to ensure group survival. This instinct has an obvious reproductive and therefore adaptive advantage for species. Your description of it is more or less the socialized version.

This is an important distinction.
We are a tribal species, a social creature. While it may seem altruistic or unselfish to do something that benefits the group, what benefits YOUR group benefits YOU.
This is not to say it is selfish by definition, using modern linguistic definitions. But it is important in the grand scheme of survival of specific genetic sequences.

It's also part of the social order - to give to the group may help ensure status in the group. It makes one less likely to fall out of favor with the tribe and be sent into exile, searching for a new place to belong.
To give to the group may also help one rise within the group, which may or may not be the conscious end-goal of such decisions, but it is a favorable outcome that is rather instinctive for many. To be either the tribal leader or at least in high status brings better chances for survival of oneself, kin, and legacy -- especially due to the fact that it is likely to help find a better selection of potential mates, and thus the likelihood of finding a more genetically-fit partner.

I think you're stretching the definition quite a bit there. If a mother dies to save her babies it means destroying herself for the benefit of others. While that might be good for the species, that's certainly bad for her. I would define altruism as giving to others without expectation of return, and you certainly can't expect a return if you're dead.

I think this plays into the above as well. It may be bad for her, but it's important for her genetics. It also comes with the expectation that someone will still help raise her offspring - and the tribe is usually welcoming of offspring because it's the future of the tribe and generally what we all live for.
In general just think of how much adults slave over the rearing of children - it's rather unselfish for the immediate future, but think of this: tribal elders were always the ones who decided major events and counseled the tribe, but it's the younger ones who risk limb and life to secure resources and find mates to prolong the tribe.

Think of all this not in the individual human sense, but in the genetic sense - doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the genes you carry are passed on (or you fight to ensure that the best genes of your tribe do carry on, if you elect not to pass on yours) is quite selfish. It's not deragatory or negative, and in fact it drives some of the most unselfish and caring moments we've ever experienced or participated in.

As social creatures, I do strongly believe that while individual instincts do exist and sometimes prevail over the demands of the tribe (perhaps because the feeling of belonging has been removed, and/or the individual disagrees with the tribe or for whatever reason has been removed/removed himself from the group) - but often, the best and strongest genetic material, and the individuals that carry them, often have the best chances of being found in those that contribute most to the group's future.
And in this changing world, that may not always mean the same thing. As the face of society evolves, so too will the strongest genes. That is to say, what genes seem to be most called for may have been viewed as weaker, outcast at an earlier point in time. Not entirely, but subtle shifts.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm sure there are plenty of parallels. But that's somewhat the point -- things can have parallels without being identical.

I don't know the whole story about Rand and Hickman, and frankly don't see that it matters. Her ideas should be judged on their own merits, and dismissing her entirely because of "fawning over a serial killer" (or whatever) really makes her point for her.

When someone brings up the way Rand felt about something and it is dismissed by someone on the left with a comment like "evil sociopath", I see that as pretty similar to those on the right who say that we shouldn't listen to Al Gore on global warming because he has a big house.

I can't speak for Craig, but I understand Rand's moral philosophy in its simplest terms as the reasons we should not hurt others are purely rational and self-interested. The emotional component of morality, that of empathy, is something she rejects as a failing and a weakness. The problem I have with this is that people can't be counted on to act rationally at all times. Sometimes, our own emotional desires will cause us to hurt others where we lack empathy. The notion of human beings operating on pure reason is fallacy. Morality ultimately fails without its emotional underpinning.

I think this moral philosophy is Rand trying to rationalize her own lack of empathy for others by positing that true morality arises entirely from pure reason. Her error, in other words, stems from her own personal psychology. While I would agree that understanding her personal psychology is not strictly necessary in critiquing her ideas, it certainly does give you a clearer total picture of where the ideas came from.

I don't know why you don't want to read the blog I linked unless you just don't want to hear negative information about Rand. You can read it in about 5 minutes.

 

[moonbogg]

Not reading the whole thread, but the documentary "I am" touches directly on this topic. Just watched it last night and it was very good I thought. Some BS may be in there, but its mostly good. On Netflix instant watch.

 

[piasabird]

One mans selfishness is another mans self preservation. Ants seem selfish they gather as much as they can to make it through the winter. Evolution has nothing to do with selfishness. The strong that survive pass on their genes. Americans slaughterd certain species into extinction. They did not evolve. I have not seen any real evolution, just extinction. Al bones of dead bodies show is extinction. If you want to be free quit watching TV. Be free of the brain washing!

In a way you are right the TV says we are suppose to buy valentines day gifts and mothers day and fathersday and christmas and birthday gifts. We dont have to accept this programming. Live and be free. The TV says drink beer and booze it up because that is what is fun. You dont have to be like that. Are you a slave to Alcohol or Cigarettes? Why is that? You have been brainwashed.

 

[Caravaggio]

To CK.
You said we were "done here" but you came back with a personal attack, so may I respond?

Every one of your posts consists primarily of snarky remarks and putdowns

Well that is easy to check. I have only posted here 24 times. Please identify the posts which are "snarky". Have some respect for the truth.

your suggestion that the Rand's worldview was in any way akin to fascism -- despite everyone knowing that it was entirely oriented around the value and rights of the individual over the state -- is the single most absurd and ill-informed comment I have read about Rand in the 30 years since I discovered her existence.

Well that suggests that you need to do more reading about the psychological under-pinnings of the authoritarian personality style. I have given you the reference to follow up, but since you seem, like your heroine ms. Rosenbaum, to be stuck on "transmit only" I'm confident that you won't check it out. Adorno has shown that authoritarians are found in all walks of life. They are extreme right wing, they believe in power and certainty and worship a hyper masculine ideal. All of those features appear in Rand's work. She favours collective action by an elite (not the Bolshie proles, of course). She has a heroine who surrenders to rape (Fountainhead), she creates a fictional fantasy island (Atlas) where a few women are left among a vast array of powerful men. This is Mills and Boon on steroids. If a male author had come up with such a woeful plot he would be pilloried as a sexist pig.

Rand's economics are clearly borrowed from F A Hayek's 1938 article "Freedom and the Economic System", published in the "Contemporary Review". Hayek is a good clear writer, Rand merely provides a technicolor distortion of his principles.

Her personal life was marked by brutal selfishness and a dismissive attitude to people who actually followed her ideals. She was anti-statist, yet died on medicare and welfare. Her rejection of decency and altruism, an idea you share it seems, would create a harsh and cruel world akin to 19th century excess, with the rich few lording it over the exploited many. In Atlas, that theme is recurrent and approved. Presumably she would regard blood donors such as myself as holy fools. Kidney donors mentally unsound. Her thinking is now rejected by research in both psychology and evolutionary biology. (Full reading list on request)

Her writing, while enthusiastic, deals in in stereotypes with little character development. Her hero makes a 60 page speech at the end of Atlas. Give us a break. The woman is a rampant egomaniac. She would support the worst excesses of deregulated, tax-dodging, 'too big to fail' capitalism. The system that has given us the longest recession since the 1930's.

Her 'objectivist' philosophy is a blend of the bleeding obvious (perception and reality) and a nasty little appeal to selfishness and monomania.

Her books still sell well, largely because she is recommended reading in some US schools, a fact I find truly frightening. How are all those kids going to cope with reality when they learn that raw selfishness is not a recipe for success?

I think Lisa Simpson puts it well in the Simpsons. Marge is admiring a friend's bookshelves and spots Rand: "Wow, Foutainhead"
Lisa says: " Isn't that the bible for right-wing losers?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I can't speak for Craig, but I understand Rand's moral philosophy in its simplest terms as the reasons we should not hurt others are purely rational and self-interested. The emotional component of morality, that of empathy, is something she rejects as a failing and a weakness. The problem I have with this is that people can't be counted on to act rationally at all times. Sometimes, our own emotional desires will cause us to hurt others where we lack empathy. The notion of human beings operating on pure reason is fallacy. Morality ultimately fails without its emotional underpinning.

First, I am not an objectivist and have not seriously studied it or looked at it in many years. So I am here, in essence, "playing an objectivist on TV".

That said, I don't believe the philosophy expects that people will always be entirely rational -- it just views rationality as the goal, and more specifically, the rejection of mysticism in favor of reality. Obviously, not everyone will be able to act this way at all times, but I don't think that invalidates the concept any more than slipping up with a piece of cheesecake means one should quit a diet.

As I see it, if objectivism is unrealistic, it isn't because it is based on people not being able to act purely rationally. It is because it assumes most people will want to act purely rationally, when the opposite is rather self-evident. But that's really a practical matter, not an invalidation of the concepts behind the ideology. To go back to the diet analogy, the problem with objectivism is that it thinks everyone always wants to be thin and fit above all else, and everyone doesn't.

I don't know why you don't want to read the blog I linked unless you just don't want to hear negative information about Rand. You can read it in about 5 minutes.

You offered the link in support of your claim that Rand wasn't a very good person. I already know that, I just don't believe it's valid to dismiss someone's viewpoints about a topic out of hand simply because he or she wasn't a good person.

 

[Caravaggio]

First, I am not an objectivist and have not seriously studied it or looked at it in many years. So I am here, in essence, "playing an objectivist on TV".

That is commendably honest but if you are not an objectivist why are you defending Rand with such vehemence?

That said, I don't believe the philosophy expects that people will always be entirely rational

Why do you think that? Rand is excoriating about her characters who vacillate or are "unsure"

As I see it, if objectivism is unrealistic it isn't because it is based on people not being able to act purely rationally. It is because it assumes most people will want to act purely rationally, when the opposite is rather self-evident.

Spot on. But that implies you are more aligned with Kant and Nietzsche? Rand is highly critical of both, I recall.

You offered the link in support of your claim that Rand wasn't a very good person. I already know that, I just don't believe it's valid to dismiss someone's viewpoints about a topic out of hand simply because he or she wasn't a good person.

You have made that point many times now.
Modern literary criticism, post Jacques Derrida (1967-), does not allow those comforting distinctions anymore. American lit crit (Yale school/ Irvine school; de Man, Hartman Miller) also sees the context as part of the text. It is no longer possible to praise Hitler for his kindness to his dog Blondi and wilfully ignore everything else he said or did.

Apply this to Rand we can understand her passion for strength in her male characters as a compensation for her family's loss of power and position during the post-revolution chaos in Russia, before she left for the US. Her early experiences gave her a deep and manifest hatred for the "second-raters" who dispossessed her father. This informs her writing AND her actions AND her personal philosophy. They cannot be sub-divided, they are all part of the "context" of her work.

_________________________

"If a lion could talk we could not understand him".

Ludwig Wittgenstein.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Jesus is the best example of altruism.

Evolution is one of God's tool for creation. Man is just finding out how God did it.

All this is obvious to me when I read the Bible.

Then again, having the Holy Spirit teaching me while I read the Bible, as well as afterwards, means it's easy to learn.

Impossible to truly understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

God bless you.

 

[Craig234]

There is a massive irony in American politics that the so-called Christian voting bloc is weighted in favor of the right-wing who are so un-Christian in their policies, while the natural home for the Christian religion - advocating for caring less about worldly things and helping the poor and caring for others - the left, is less prominent.

Christianity makes more sense as a radical political movement on the left, hated by the corporatists.

But there seems no limit to hypocrisy, as voters believing in a poor man walking in rags are led to vote for the wealthiest who want to slash support for the common man.

This didn't used to be quite so perverse, when Christianity played a role in politics more about the civil rights movement, anti-poverty programs, and anti-war messages.

But then came Reagan and what I'd call corrupt right-wing religious organizations.

The 'televangelist' culture and big business religion with megachurces and overlapping interests between politicians wanting votes and religions liking friends in power.

 

[Caravaggio]

Jesus is the best example .

I would probably agree with that. Especially his insistence on anonymous giving without fanfare or hope of kudos from the crowd.
I no longer understand the notion of "Holy Spirit". But I'm happy that it inspires you.

Reading Acts of the Apostles, chapters 3,4&5 interests me greatly. It is clear that the early Church was organised on strictly communal (communist?) lines with no private property or land holdings. The wealthy sell all and each receives what they need from the communal pot. There is no discussion of "tithing" or "giving as much as one can", the more modern interpretation.

My questions are these: how long did that system last?
Was it a response to a firm belief in the imminence of the end of the material world and the arrival of the kingdom of God?
What forces lead to the re-establishment of private property?

Interesting to contrast Jesus's message with this from Ayn Rand:

"There is one word which is forbidden in this valley: the word "give".
(Speech by John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged")

 

[Caravaggio]

There is a massive irony in American politics that the so-called Christian voting bloc is weighted in favor of the right-wing who are so un-Christian in their policies, while the natural home for the Christian religion - advocating for caring less about worldly things and helping the poor and caring for others - the left, is less prominent.

Christianity makes more sense as a radical political movement on the left, hated by the corporatists.

But there seems no limit to hypocrisy, as voters believing in a poor man walking in rags are led to vote for the wealthiest who want to slash support for the common man.

Absolutely. The early church was truly radical, as I have tried to say in answer to the post by Pray to Jesus, above.
What we see now is a hideous distortion of Christian principles with many churches teaching that material wealth is a sign of God's love! A complete inversion of the original message.

When travelling to the US we are immediately impressed by the apparent necessity to have some religious conviction. Each little community announces its population, and number and type of churches, as you drive in.

My favourite sign was outside a church in West Virginia:
"Dogs welcome on leash, no snakes please"

Sam Harris points out that any politician standing for public office (certainly the top office) has to at least pretend to have faith. I'm not sure that Obama is religious at all, but he certainly puts on the "robes" when necessary.

 

[Mursilis]

Christianity makes more sense as a radical political movement on the left, hated by the corporatists.

It would make the most sense not being a political movement at all.

 

[Caravaggio]

It would make the most sense not being a political movement at all.

But most religious texts are full of politics. How can you take the politics out of this, from Jesus?

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
(Mathew 19 but Mark and Luke provide the same story)

There is absolutely no way that statement can be 'de-politicised', although many rich people have tried.

Deuteronomy and leviticus are full of the politics of trading, war, conflict, segregation and exploitation. For example, it is OK for a Jew to sell to a gentile the meat of an animal found dead, but this same meat must not be sold to another Jew.

The Koran borrows the eye of the needle metaphor almost word for word. It also has a prescription for dealing with political enemies: Sura 8 verse 12 says
"Cut off their heads and cut from them every finger tip" (in that order, apparently).

These are intensely 'political' statements.
Wherever the politics of strongly held religious beliefs rub up against one another we see conflict:

Sri Lanka, Budhists and Hindus
Myanmar (Burma) Buddhists and Sunni Muslims
Malaysia, Muslim, Hindu, Christian and Buddhist.
Serbia, Christian Orthodox, Muslim and Catholic
Sudan, Muslim, Christian and Animists
Uganda, Christians, animists and mountain worshippers.
Kashmir, Muslims and Hindus.
Iraq, Sunni vs Shia Muslims.
Lebanon, Shia, Sunni and Christian
Turkey, Sunni Muslims secular 'Muslims', Armenian Christians.
Israel, Judaism, secular Jews, atheists, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims and some Christians.
Croatia, Catholics and Russian orthodox,
Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants.
Netherlands, catholic and Protestant
Germany, Catholic, Lutheran and agnostic.
Egypt, Sunni Muslim, Coptic Christian, secular liberal 'Sunnis'
Ukraine, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox.

Very political stuff, this religion.

 

[Mursilis]

But most religious texts are full of politics. How can you take the politics out of this, from Jesus?

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
(Mathew 19 but Mark and Luke provide the same story)

There is absolutely no way that statement can be 'de-politicised', although many rich people have tried.

Your incredulousness regarding how that statement can not be "political" is matched by my incredulousness about how that statement can be the slightest bit political.

It may indeed be difficult for the rich to enter heaven, but it's not government's job to assist them with that endeavor.

 

[Caravaggio]

Your incredulousness regarding how that statement can not be "political" is matched by my incredulousness about how that statement can be the slightest bit political.

I am incredulous at your incredulity. Perhaps I should have quoted the earlier verse from Jesus, (verse 21, same chapter)
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor"

This strikes me as an exhortation to impose a self-ordained wealth tax of about 100%.
Does that strike you as either a 'lefty' or 'righty' thing to do?

The instructions are stark. That very few modern, so-called, 'Christians' would dream of such an act of generosity does not erase the fact that Jesus clearly favoured the poor over the rich. Verse 30, ibid,
"But many who are first will be last and many who are last will be first".

Is it your view that nothing Jesus said ever had a shred of political relevance?

It may indeed be difficult for the rich to enter heaven.

Exactly.
So why is that, in your view?

 

[Mursilis]

I am incredulous at your incredulity. Perhaps I should have quoted the earlier verse from Jesus, (verse 21, same chapter)
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor"

This strikes me as an exhortation to impose a self-ordained wealth tax of about 100%.
Does that strike you as either a 'lefty' or 'righty' thing to do?

The instructions are stark. That very few modern, so-called, 'Christians' would dream of such an act of generosity does not erase the fact that Jesus clearly favoured the poor over the rich. Verse 30, ibid,
"But many who are first will be last and many who are last will be first".

Is it your view that nothing Jesus said ever had a shred of political relevance?

There's a world of difference between the wealthy doing, as you quoted, selling their possessions and giving to the poor, and gov't taking their possessions by force and passing them along to the poor (or more likely these days, other rich people). I don't claim to be a biblical expert by any means, but I don't remember seeing any passage wherein Jesus suggested his admonitions actually be enacted into law (in the legal sense).

 

[Craig234]

So, there should be no overlap between politics and religion.

If your religion says murder is wrong (and they all do), then that has to be the end of it - we can have no laws against murder. That's political, these laws.

Same with stealing. Covered by religion - so no politics about laws prohibiting it allowed.

And the ONLY sort of financial policy allowed is individual. If a group of people thinks it makes sense to set up an insurance system under the law - say, like a fire department or police department paid for by taxes - sorry, that's political, can't do it. If people think it makes sense to set up a requirement to pay into Social Security and reduce elder poverty - sorry, no way. You're welcome to hand out cash to old people, but you can forget any political activity to help with elder poverty. Same with Medicare.

And if we are going to have any tax system - the distribution of those taxes is a political issue, so no amount of lowering the taxes on the wealthy is inappropriate, that's a political issue. In fact, when the wealthy explain that they give so much to society that society giving them zero taxes in thanks is justified, and everyone else pays the taxes, you can't object - that's a political issue. After all, give unto Casear what is Casear's.

Here's something those people miss.

Democracy takes politics out of the hands of a dictatorship, a Caesar, and places them in the hands of the people. And so biblical instructions to care for the poor can be performed in part by voting for policies to help the poor, where it's efficient to tax and provide things. Just as people implement their religious teaching against murder with laws and taxes to pay for police and jails, they can vote for policies to tax to pay for various programs to help people.

One question that comes up is, where is the line on what's appropriate to require of everyone that is from your religion?

If your religion says you should not take caffeine, is that grounds for a law banning it for everyone? How about a law that you have to belong to the majority's religion?

That's where people have to decide where to draw the line between 'theocracy' thinking every religious teaching is suitable for the state to enforce, and freedom of religion that might say some things - murder, theft - are universal issues for the state to enforce, but others deserve freedom for each person to decide.

The point being made in a recent post is that many people act against their own claimed religion's teachings in supporting policies bad for the poor.

But I don't see a big problem with people voting for the policies they believe in to help the poor. Those are defensible under secular and religious values.

But the opponents want to scream murder about 'politics' being involved if it helps the poor - while they're happy for 'politics' to be involved on some issues they agree with.

This is legitimately somewhat paradoxical - the conflict between people being told to 'give unto Casear what is Caesar's' while wanting to use taxes to help the poor.

But this goes to fundamental questions for how just about every American would object to the instruction to 'give away all their possessions' while saying they support the bible.

And it leaves legitimate questions on social policy. Say 100 million Americans followed that instruction tomorrow. Where would they live? What would they eat?

I think this is where there's a commonsense element to Christianity allowing for social and political processes that are good for society - including voting to help the poor.

Jesus didn't attack the moneychangers for being moneychangers - He attacked them for doing it in a church.

The bible also teaches that the ideal state is for a man to not marry and be celibate, but it allows that if a man is too weak to resist the temptation, he's allowed to marry.

So if everyone followed that teaching, the human race would end. Just maybe, there's a commonsense element where it's good for some people to marry and reproduce.

The objection to politics - especially in a democracy - being used to care for the poor is misguided, immoral, cherry picked selectivity about what politics can get involved in.

In fact I'd say politics is the most efficient way to follow the instruction to care for the poor. Seems to me that hypocrites are the opponents.

However, I would make secular benefits the guidelines for the policy.

I usually avoid discussing religion here, but this seems suitable.

Save234

 

[Mursilis]

The objection to politics - especially in a democracy - being used to care for the poor is misguided, immoral, cherry picked selectivity about what politics can get involved in.

And yet, when some people - in a democracy - vote to deny marriage and other rights to gays, usually for religious reasons, that seems to bother you (and myself as well, as I've never been shy of saying).

In fact I'd say politics is the most efficient way to follow the instruction to care for the poor. Seems to me that hypocrites are the opponents.

There's hardly ANYTHING efficient about politics. Given equal resources, I'm fairly sure community based organizations could deliver far more benefits per dollar than gov't delivers. Even the NY Times has noted that govt's great "War on Poverty" hasn't recouped much benefit for all the trillions spent. From a 1998 article:

There is an area of Booneville that some residents call Ho Chi Minh City for its third world appearance. It is not large, just a few winding gravel roads. But many of the houses look like shanties, heated with wood or coal. Children walk around with dirty bare feet. Many people lack telephones and cars.In many respects, this little corner of Appalachia looks much as it did 30 years ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, taking special aim at the rural decay in places like Owsley County, here in eastern Kentucky, and other distressed areas in the 399 counties of 13 states that make up Appalachia.
Federal and state agencies have plowed billions of dollars into Appalachia through economic development programs, highway construction and job-creation initiatives to help residents overcome the economic and psychological isolation caused by poverty and the rugged terrain.
But a tour of Booneville offers ample evidence that money and countless programs have had only marginal effects on breaking a cycle of poverty and despair that continues throughout many parts of Appalachia. And conditions could grow worse before they improve.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/09/us/pessimism-retains-grip-on-appalachian-poor.html

"Helping" the poor by voting is nothing but a cheap cop-out by guilty consciences who want to be able to tell their friends that they "care" for the unfortunate but don't actually want to get their hands dirty. Put in regular and frequent time at a soup kitchen if you really want to help the poor - it takes more than putting an Obama sticker on your car.