Charity by Force: Jesus vs. Marx (dispute between Rush Limbaugh and Pope Francis)

AMERICAN THINKER ^ | December 12, 2013 | Jonathon Moseley

[Moseley]

It is fascinating that the recent debate over poverty, starring Rush Limbaugh and Pope Francis (maybe, translations subject to disagreement) reveals one central dispute: (a) compulsory "charity" by government force, on the left, versus (b) the freedom of each individual to voluntarily donate to charity and make one's own decisions about his or her life, on the right. Forget what either Rush or Francis said. The raging debates that followed are most revealing.

Liberals have consistently abused Christian teaching to attack free enterprise and spread socialism. These are not just Catholics, of course. In fact, most -- or all -- of them are not really Christians at all, but rather only leftists hoping to fool enough Christians to tip the balance politically.

How can anyone give anything to the poor without earning money first? Without capitalism, free enterprise, and markets, charity suffers. Capitalism is the engine that makes giving to the poor possible. In other words, liberals who wrap themselves in Christianity concoct a false choice, insisting that charity and capitalism are polar opposites.

Initially, should it matter what Jesus thinks about whether the United States should pursue liberal or conservative politics? If citizens want their government to set up safety nets, can't societies provide government charity for purely pragmatic, non-religious reasons?

Well, it depends, of course.

If discussing Christianity favors a liberal philosophy, then it counts. If Christianity contradicts liberals, then it doesn't count. And how dare you mention it? Jesus should be involved in American politics only if that helps advance a governmental agenda of bigger government, ever-expanding regulation, borrowing $17 trillion of national debt, and redistribution of wealth.

[GOPJ]

Charity by force is a tax.

Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem to donate to charity... so the State could ‘do good’ (by the State's definition of doing good).

Kinda changes the story...

[MrB]

I’d like to broach another aspect of this topic...

those who are wealthy and claim the name of Christ should be under the chastisement of His church if they refuse to be charitable,

but what of those who do not claim to be Christian?

Sure, they’re ultimately under judgment, but the church has no authority over them, and empowering government over them would, I think, be outside of the charge of the church.

[Bullpine]

Who said anything about Pieta, or the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican Library, etc, except you. Catholic church should sell of real estate in the U.S.. Start in Manhattan.

[Moseley]

IMHO, the best solution to the world’s troubles is a Christian way of life which includes charity and hard work.

Should this be enforced by government?

[Moseley]

Did the Pope really say “unfettered” capitalism or is that what the media says he said?

Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation said many, many things which you have to take all together. I don't recall him talking about unfettered capitalism.

But what he did say is far worse. Pope Francis wrote that the concept of letting unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market -- the definition of free enterprise instead of government management -- is POISON.

Francis condemned as "tyranny" and sinful ideologies that argue against government management of the economy.

Pope Francis' sections on economics have nothing to do with theology, Christianity or spirituality. They read like a conversation copied down from a secular left-wing college faculty lounge.

[Moseley]

No, He did not suggest the rich man would be in Heaven but that the rich man could be in Heaven.

This is technically true, and the emphasis is on God as Supreme in both power and making the decisions. However, the context was the angst expressed by the disciples about whether rich people could be saved.

PETER AND ANDREW WERE RICH -- THEY LIVED IN CAPERNAUM, a rich community. They were business owners. Matthew had been a tax collector, which was a rich profession.

So in context to the questions asked, Jesus seems to reassure them that being rich would not keep the rich young ruler -- or them -- from heaven. Remember that the rich young ruler claimed to have obeyed all the other laws of God perfectly, and Jesus does not dispute this.

We should remember that Jesus was constantly CHALLENGING people to come closer to God. He was not necessarily presenting a light switch, on / off, but challenging people's stumbling blocks, misunderstandings, and distractions. Yes, if one is not born again they cannot be saved.

But I see no contradiction between Jesus giving the rich young ruling a grilling and a hard time about his attachment to wealth and challenging him to increase his focus on God and decrease his focus on the things of this world, while still accepting the rich young ruler into heaven in the end.

[bramps]

I hope you didn't misunderstand my post. You're preaching to the choir. I was just ticked at an unnecessary shot at protestants.

[NeoCaveman]

But I see no contradiction between Jesus giving the rich young ruling a grilling and a hard time about his attachment to wealth and challenging him to increase his focus on God and decrease his focus on the things of this world, while still accepting the rich young ruler into heaven in the end.

Exactly it's the attachment to things of this world, like great wealth, that is the stumbling block. Not the object but the attachment to the object.

[massgopguy]

Liberation Theology or What Would Jesus Do If He Was Stalin.

[dragonblustar]

I was watching Fox a few days ago and some business leader said big companies are moving into the cities and out of the suburbs because the cities have a younger/ out of collage work force and it would be cheaper to hire them then the older worker who is married and has kids.

That’s the kind of capitalism that hurts. When companies pull the rug from loyal workers with families to support and go after the younger group just to save a buck, mean while their CEO’s get millions or their companies get big hand outs from the government.

But saying that, I’m not in favor of socialism or government hand outs for anyone. I just hate to see older workers get bumped out of their jobs for some college kid.

[steelhead_trout]

“”Since the origins of modern capitalism around 1780, more than two-thirds of the world’s population has moved out of poverty. In China and India alone, more than 500 million have been raised out of poverty just in the last forty years. “

---

That dates the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So maybe it was technology—which capitalism was happy to use—which lifted so many out of poverty.

[Just mythoughts]

Well, in an organization where NOBODY is responsible for anything, there sure does seem to be a love of capitalist dollars for redistribution. There is nothing TeaParty about this organization ... that means NO taxation/mandates without representation. Why look who is majority religious representative in this liberal/progressive government. One does not get much higher up than Saint Biden... Why even the republicans in the people's House is led by the wailing, hailing Bohner. People get a clue. Now have these that use US to fill their bank accounts shunned capitalism? Ha ... Floods of hypocrisy.

[steelhead_trout]

“That’s the kind of capitalism that hurts. When companies pull the rug from loyal workers with families to support and go after the younger group just to save a buck, mean while their CEO’s get millions or their companies get big hand outs from the government.”

---

With no political party in place to staunch the greed (some might call it treason) of our corporations, this greed may ultimately face the point of a gun....or the bottom of a guillotine. Corporations, and their political allies in both parties, have done their utmost to turn us into a third world nation, so they shouldn’t be shocked when the population turns to third world solutions.

[steelhead_trout]

“Could he not be implying that capitalism, without moral guidance, can lead to tyranny of a market place.”

---

Jesus was never enamored with capitalism. See, for example, Matthew 21:12. When Jesus saw capitalism in practice, he responded with a whip!

[Alex Murphy]

Jesus was never enamored with capitalism. See, for example, Matthew 21:12. When Jesus saw capitalism in practice, he responded with a whip!

I'd be interested to hear any FReeper's suggestions for an alternative economic system.

[wita]

What he is supposed to have said is unfettered consumerism.

[Salvation]

No

I believe it was unfettered “consumerism.”

[Salvation]

You first. Sell everything and follow Jesus.

[Salvation]

Or what about Bill and Melinda Gates who ferociously support abortion and Planned Parenthood?

[Salvation]

No, we’ll start with you.