Jesus and Government

[katherine2001]

Jesus(PBUH) did say that we should give to the poor; however, he did not say it should be mandatory. Government's imposing taxation on it's citizens in order to feed the poor and homeless is not what he had in mind. Yes, we as a society should do more for these people, but it's a voluntary basis.

Mixing religion with politics is never a good thing, especially since men are so susceptible to evil. Take the Crusades, or the perversion of Islam in some MidEast and African nations today. These examples are not what any of the prophets had spoke about.

Actually, Jesus said that what we did for others is what we will be judged on. If you notice in Matthew 25, those who didn't feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in the stranger, etc., didn't make it into the Kingdom. Christ didn't say in so many words that it is mandatory, but showing that those who don't will not be in the Kingdom tells me that it is mandatory.

 

[TG123]

One sentiment that I see regularly on this forum can be summarised like this:

In the Bible Jesus tells us to show compassion for the downtrodden, give them aid when they are unable to give it to themselves - in fact, he says that when we help such people we are actually helping him (I was hungry and you gave...). However, he says that we personally should help them, he doesn't talk about the government! Therefore, it is wrong for the government to act in the way that Jesus would have us act as individuals.

This has always confused me, and I have a few questions:

In democratic countries in which the government is of, by and for the people, that is it is representative of the people, why is there such a distinction?

Great point. We should be electing politicians who act in the way Jesus would want people to act. This is a democracy, a government for the people and by the people. Therefore we are the government. If we are to follow Jesus in everyday life, this includes politics.

If the government, as the amalgamation of the wealth (in various senses of the word) of the people, is better able to help others in the way Jesus would have us help others than individuals alone, due to efficiencies of scale for instance, why shouldn't it take on that role? Surely all together acting in unison through the government is a better way to offer help to as many people as possible, rather than disparate individuals doing good with no overall organisation?

Why not do both? I think Christians should vote for people who care about the poor and want to help them- like making medical care affordable for all. However, we should help as individuals and churches too. And sometimes it is better not to mix.

Example: I am a teacher in an inner city school. We work with kids who come from rough homes and often are poor and bring a lot of issues into the school. There are public schools close to our school who teach the exact same kids. The school I teach in however is a Christian school. I would not want to work in a public school because in my school I can pray with the kids and incorporate the Bible into the curriculum whereas in a public school I can't. In my school I don't have to teach students that homosexuality is OK or how to have "safe sex" with another teenager. I get paid half as much in my school than I would in a public school and I have less resources. Yet I would never leave to teach anywhere else.
Having said all that I support public schools and believe education should be free for all. I vote for politicians who want to improve the public school system because all kids should be entitled to a good education, we don't need a 2 tier system.

So I support government run social programs politically but personally I can do just as good if not better helping these same people with a Christian organization.

Why do the same people that argue that the USA in particular is a "Christian Nation" argue that the government should not act in a way that follows Christ's teachings?

The USA is not Christian. It's government never followed Christ's teachings.

 

[TG123]

Actually, Jesus said that what we did for others is what we will be judged on. If you notice in Matthew 25, those who didn't feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in the stranger, etc., didn't make it into the Kingdom. Christ didn't say in so many words that it is mandatory, but showing that those who don't will not be in the Kingdom tells me that it is mandatory.

Easy E is not quoting from the Bible, but the Quran. Most religions make helping the poor a virtue or an option. God though makes it mandatory, as He illustrates in the words of Jesus.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For one, I only take 'right' to be metaphorical language, since the only meaningful use of the term 'right' I have ever heard is the corollary of a duty which is established by contract. That being said, my views on justice are (somewhat) simple. I take the view that justice is, and can only coherently mean (abuse of language aside) 'to each his own', and that these can only be defended epistemically in terms of liberties being bounded by specific torts, interference with liberties requires justification on the part of those who would interfere in each and every circumstance. Property is simply liberty, that is the liberty to do what you please naturally includes the liberty to do so with material objects. When a dispute between property claims arises the presumption of liberty exists on both sides, and it can only be arbitrated according to some coherent ontological connection between the actor and the disputed object, either by contract or by proof of normal and antecedent liberty to act toward the claimed property, IE "finder's, keepers" and "first come, first serve".

It is my view that so called 'social' justice, and the various redistributionist and statist authority regimes simply can not stand an epistemic test of this sort and are simply arbitrary declaration and coercion, and whatever they may be (you may even think they are 'moral') they are quite simply not 'justice', and no one can be normatively required to comply with them against his will.

Ah, good old negative rights (which some would have us believe are the only kind of rights).

I recommend Henry Shue (1993). ‘Basic Rights’. In Goodwin and Pettit (eds.) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 341 – 355.

 

[exotic walrus]

Example: I am a teacher in an inner city school. We work with kids who come from rough homes and often are poor and bring a lot of issues into the school.

In my school I don't have to teach students that homosexuality is OK or how to have "safe sex" with another teenager.

So the socio-economic group that the later half of the 20th century shows us are more likely to have sex? Typing "safe sex" as if it were a non existent quasi bs concept when you are a teacher (or maybe "teacher" is more appropriate?) seems kind of disturbing.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

Actually, Jesus said that what we did for others is what we will be judged on. If you notice in Matthew 25, those who didn't feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in the stranger, etc., didn't make it into the Kingdom. Christ didn't say in so many words that it is mandatory, but showing that those who don't will not be in the Kingdom tells me that it is mandatory.

Yes, serving others is mandatory to make it into heaven, but God also gave us free will to decide. Now why doesn't God force us to do what is mandatory to get into heaven? He didn't do this because he wanted us to have free will. Loving someone means allowing them to be free to make there own decisions. Government intervention in all facets of our life, does not show love and compassion for others, but rather, it shows that we want government to do what we won't. This will not get us into heaven it will only take us farther away.

 

[neutronium_alice]

This interest me, because in another thread you stated that society doesn't exist, but now you are framing the concept of a right, including your fundamental right to property

As I indicated earlier, I don't believe there really are rights except for contractual rights. 'Right' is at best a metaphor for liberties, which are not rights but - well, liberties. That is literally what right and duty mean.

A liberty is different than a right. Preventing someone from a liberty requires an epistemically justifiable reason, as well as allowing an epistemically possible defense. Only liberties, restrained by conventional torts (things one is presumed to not be allowed to do, though it can be proven otherwise under certain circumstances such as defense). From this view justice is not a 'social' or 'collective' enterprise at all, but one which has certain epistemic and logical implications. Property is a liberty, not a 'right'. The use of 'right' in this regard I believe to be an abuse of language stemming from the republican radical movements in the 18th century.

 

[nolongerhome]

As I indicated earlier, I don't believe there really are rights except for contractual rights. 'Right' is at best a metaphor for liberties, which are not rights but - well, liberties. That is literally what right and duty mean.

A liberty is different than a right. Preventing someone from a liberty requires an epistemically justifiable reason, as well as allowing an epistemically possible defense. Only liberties, restrained by conventional torts (things one is presumed to not be allowed to do, though it can be proven otherwise under certain circumstances such as defense). From this view justice is not a 'social' or 'collective' enterprise at all, but one which has certain epistemic and logical implications. Property is a liberty, not a 'right'. The use of 'right' in this regard I believe to be an abuse of language stemming from the republican radical movements in the 18th century.

I think you need to cut out some of the jargon, because while I appreciate that you have obviously a sound philosophical background, I think it has a tendency to mask some major problems and it ends up confusing matters more than it clarifies things.

So... to summarise your argument so far, the fundamental right was property rights, but now we aren't going to accept the socially determined rights discourse, so we need to find some other concept to defend it.

You offer us "liberties" as the alternative. I think your first attempt at definition was telling - what are liberties? Liberties are liberties!

The problem here is that we do actually need to have a proper definition of what the concept of a liberty is, and then we need to work out what specific liberties each person is entitled to.

I think you will find that takes us back to society. Liberties are socially defined as much as rights. You yourself acknowledge this when you introduce torts in your post.

Can you define the concept of liberty and outline what liberties people have in a way that removes all societal construction of the concept itself and its specific manifestations?

 

[lordbt]

So... to summarise your argument so far, the fundamental right was property rights, but now we aren't going to accept the socially determined rights discourse, so we need to find some other concept to defend it.

No rights are possible without the right to property, but property rights are not mans fundamental right. Mans fundamental right and the right upon which all other rights are derived is mans right to life.

My 2 cents.

 

[neutronium_alice]

You offer us "liberties" as the alternative. I think your first attempt at definition was telling - what are liberties? Liberties are liberties!

Liberties are everything that is not forbidden.

 

[nolongerhome]

Liberties are everything that is not forbidden.

How can you possibly say that liberties are not a social construct, then? Who is doing the forbidding?

 

[nolongerhome]

No rights are possible without the right to property, but property rights are not mans fundamental right. Mans fundamental right and the right upon which all other rights are derived is mans right to life.

My 2 cents.

This is contradictory. No rights are possible without the right to property... but all rights are derived from mans right to life?

You don't think that a man can live without property? Because it would appear that you are saying that you can't have the right to life without the right to property.

 

[lordbt]

This is contradictory. No rights are possible without the right to property... but all rights are derived from mans right to life?

You don't think that a man can live without property? Because it would appear that you are saying that you can't have the right to life without the right to property.

I could paraphrase, but she said it best:

"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

 

[neutronium_alice]

How can you possibly say that liberties are not a social construct, then? Who is doing the forbidding?

Epistemic coherence. Asking someone to prove why they should not be allowed to do something is asking them to prove a universal negative. First come, first serve; finder's keepers and contract are the only non-arbitrary relations between various persons and materials.

Of course what is ultimately forbidden is a matter of convention in practice, but there are many conventions and rules in present state pseudo-legal systems which are epistemically nonsense. A tort is something that someone is presumed not to be allowed to do because, for example, people are presumed to have a prior connection to their persons in the same way they would to a rock. Thus poking out someone's eyes is presumed not allowed, because they are presumed to have set a precident by having said eyes in their head. There are exceptions, but like all claims, these would be constrained by estoppel.

Thus, in my view justice is not 'merit' and it is not 'morality', it is what can be proven and what can be reasonably asked proof for. There are some conventional aspects of it that are not entirely invulnerable, but compared to statute law and the menace of the herd, it's rock solid.

 

[nolongerhome]

I could paraphrase, but she said it best:

"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

The bolded part is clearly not universally true.

The section that follows seems to argue that only property that is owned individually rather than collectively can sustain life. This is also not true.

Man can have his life sustained collectively, and the product of man's labour can therefore be pooled collectively for this purpose, and no property rights are required.

 

[nolongerhome]

Epistemic coherence. Asking someone to prove why they should not be allowed to do something is asking them to prove a universal negative. First come, first serve; finder's keepers and contract are the only non-arbitrary relations between various persons and materials.

Of course what is ultimately forbidden is a matter of convention in practice, but there are many conventions and rules in present state pseudo-legal systems which are epistemically nonsense. A tort is something that someone is presumed not to be allowed to do because, for example, people are presumed to have a prior connection to their persons in the same way they would to a rock. Thus poking out someone's eyes is presumed not allowed, because they are presumed to have set a precident by having said eyes in their head. There are exceptions, but like all claims, these would be constrained by estoppel.

Thus, in my view justice is not 'merit' and it is not 'morality', it is what can be proven and what can be reasonably asked proof for. There are some conventional aspects of it that are not entirely invulnerable, but compared to statute law and the menace of the herd, it's rock solid.

How are the concepts of "first come, first served" or "finders keepers" not arbitrary relations between various persons and materials in a contingent world?

In a world of limited resources, ie. the reality we live in, the fact that someone owns something means that others don't own it. Your world view takes an arbitrary set of affairs, raises it to a pedestal of coherent perfection, and then leaves it to reproduce itself because at its foundation is the simple concept that might is right, possession is 9/10 of the law, and all sorts of other little phrases that amount to a system in which the power is arbitrarily distributed and largelly perpetually maintained as a basis fro mthat original distribution.

Basically you right to property is equal to the right of the rich to stay rich at the expense of the poor.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The right to property is all well and fine but where does this right come from?
Nozick has argued that justice in acquisition and justice in transaction (and the repeated and continual applications of the first two conditions) are necessary for property justice to occur - regardless of whether this results in unequal patterns of distribution.
However, a problem is here encountered that spans across the ages. Colonization involves the unjust acquisition of property, and in turn its unjust transfer. Thus it could be argued that much of the material prosperity in the hands of the world's wealthiest nations and corporations are actually the fruits of an injustice. Is it really their property - and their right to it - if it was stolen in the first place and then sold, stolen and then sold again, repeatedly?
Having the right to property is fine but let's not delude ourselves here... much of the material wealth that the richest now possess was not acquired or transferred justly, but rather was the fruits of repeated thefts whether by government, military, colonization, ordinary robbery or otherwise. Even Nozick's principles, which are incredibly 'right-wing' make this apparent.

 

[ebia]

Mixing religion with politics is never a good thing, especially since men are so susceptible to evil.

The idea that religion and politics could be possibility be separated is a modern invention that would have been completely alien to Jesus, Paul, any of the biblical authors - or Mohammed for that matter.

=nolongerhomeWhy do the same people that argue that the USA in particular is a "Christian Nation" argue that the government should not act in a way that follows Christ's teachings?

a. Because they read the N.T. (and the rest of the bible) through a lens of individualism and concept of separation of politics and religion that are completely foreign to the texts they are reading.
b. Because if it's their private responsibility they can say know they are commanded to do, fail to do, stay rich and ask forgiveness. If they admit that the system has to change then they run the danger that it actually will.

 

[ebia]

I believe there must be a distinction between needy and self inflicted needy the same way there needs to be a distinction between good and evil. Since the government cannot make those distinctions in a pluralistic society, the government should stay out of health care/welfare that tends to benefit the self inflicted needy.

And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And many * rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” And Jesus stopped and said, "get off your backside and get yourself a job, you waster".

In too many cases, the self inflicted needy are because of willful rejection of the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. Until there is an acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and a commitment to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, health care/welfare will do little good.

I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, * you did not do it to me.' And these will go away * into eternal punishment, but the righteous * into * eternal life"

Exactly where did Jesus say "except if it was a bum - in that case feel free to tell him to get on his bike"?

 

[Matthew_18:14]

The bolded part is clearly not universally true.

The section that follows seems to argue that only property that is owned individually rather than collectively can sustain life. This is also not true.

Man can have his life sustained collectively, and the product of man's labour can therefore be pooled collectively for this purpose, and no property rights are required.

True, but even in a commune there are some sort of property rights. People need privacy and I would think that in a commune you would at least be assigned a home, room, or bed. Something has to be yours for some length of time otherwise someone could just come take the shirt off of your back. Even though the shirt on your back may be the property of the commune it is still yours while you wear it.

Secondly I'd like to add that the only communes that work are the ones that people voluntarily join.