The crowning lie of conservatism is that God is conservative, if not fascist. Christianity? Conservative? Jesus' trashing of the merchants at the temple is in all four gospels... In fact, God is a progressive, if not socialist.
Nave's topical bible: communism, page 232:
More:
Property is Blasphemy
"My breatheren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory. For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say "have a seat here, please" while you say to the poor man, "stand here" or "sit at my feet" have you not made distinctions among yourselves, andbecome judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved breatheren.
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonoured the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not them who drag you to court? Is it not they who blaspheme the honourable name which has invoked over you? (Jas. 2:1-7)
Even a grossly inefficient socialist society is better than an efficient capitalist one:
Rich equals wicked
I could quote any passage concerning wickedness, because the words "rich" and "wicked" are used almost interchangeably in the bible.
Rich conservatives like to claim that the bible's advice not to envy the rich means it's against the redistribution of wealth quoting for example psa 49:16 "be not afraid when one is made rich" [the bible also tells us not be afraid of evil] actually, the bible says to fight poverty, but not using the same methods as the rich:
Of course, slaveowners who tried to justify themselves through christianity never followed any of the old testimates laws regarding slavery: for example, they must be freed after seven years [ex 21:2]
Workers should get what they make: there should be no profit:
Flexibility and competition for the lowest wage:
Corporate crime:
Advertising:
The "rugged individual":
Naves topical bible has over 6 pages for "fellowship", including this passage:
Conservatives who make noise about how Christian they are and who want school prayer should read:
On debtor's prisons:
luke 6:3 "Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again"
War exists to oppress the poor:
Capitalism is not voluntary:
Republican anti-immigration:
Christianity and capitalism are incompatible:
Rich conservatives love to quote the bibles love of contentment, whether rich or poor. They want to poor to be content...Yet conservatives are not content with the idea of becomeing poorer in an egalitarian society! If being poor is so great, why not give it a try?
Wealth is a treadmill:
"Growth" and Corporate mergers:
Is Chistianity actually pro-marriage?
Marriage is advocated because it is less likely to be sexually exiting: 1 cor 7:1 ...It is good for a man not to touch a woman [of course, this could also be advocating homosexuality!] 2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornification, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband...It is better to marry than to burn"
And what about Christianity on "free trade"? For laws concerning commerce, see Leviticus 19:36,37; 25:14,17
teenage sexuality :
On "go earn your own food":
On "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps":
Deut. Sets down laws for a welfare state -
Strangely, it isn't republicans who advocate cancelling all debts every 7 years, or allowing travellers to eat from fields they don't own...There are other ways in which moses was more civilized than republicans, for example:
The difference between possession and property:
Possession is when you have what you can use, like an ear of corn. When you have an entire field of corn, that's property - it's far more than you could use. If you interpret "thy neibour" as meaning God (not so far fetched, when you consider that there are two passages aimed at the visitor yet none at the host) it means that you may take eat food, wear clothes, or drive a car when you need to, but when you don't those things belong to God - that is, they are held in common. prov 30:8 "Give me niether poverty nor riches, feed me with food convienient for me"
On welfare:
Abortion:
Translation: It is illegal to assault a woman causing miscarriage - but only if it bothers her husband! Since a woman's decision to abort won't bother her husband (which she doesn't have in most cases) and obviously not herself, no harm is done. If God was anti-choice, there would be more in the bible about it than this one passage. IMO, God considers abortion to be a non-issue - much more attention is focused on things like abstinence from alcohol (why don't anti-choicers try to bring back prohibition? It's got more biblical backing) and what food is kosher.
The Christian extent of forgiveness:
Some loonyterians, republican to the core, claim to be Christian...
When they settled in Canaan, land was equally distributed and there was no major differences in wealth. Houses were approximately the same size as late of the 10th century BC.
The middle of the 8th century BC, the time of Amos, was a time of massive "growth", with economic prosperity - for some. (John Bright _A History of Israel_) Archaeologists find large, well built houses away from the crowded small houses - slums. (Roland De Vaux, _Ancient Israel_ 72-73)
Amos warned the people that inequality is evil, and would bring God's wraith: "You have built houses of hewn stone, but youshall not dwell in them" (5:11) He denounced the "cows" who "oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, 'Bring, that we may drink'" (4:1) He warned that the rich "trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth" (2:7) He saw that government worked for the rich against the people - in court the judges were bribed by the wealthy. (5:10-15) He knew that the rich are made through oppression of the needy (6:1-7) he made a prophecy:
"Woe to those who lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the midst of the stall...Therefore they shall now be the first of those to go into exile [read: they'll be first up against the wall] and the revelry of those who stretch themselves [on couches] shall pass away" (6:4, 7)
A few years later the Assyrians invaded, taking thousands into captivity and capturing the northern kingdom. (Meanwhile we've got conservatives going on about comets because of a few gay marines.)
Another cause for the invasion was idolatry - the worship of material objects. (Hos. 8:1-6; 9:1-3) (See also Ezkiel 20, and Jeremiah 11:9-10)
However, Isreal did not become egalitarian, and God sent Isaiah:
"Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees...to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people from their right...What will you do on the day of punishment, in the storm which will come from afar?" (Is 10:1-4) What *will* you do?
A century later came Jeremiah, who brought another warning:
"Wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like birders lying in wait. They set a trap, they catch men. Like a basket full of birds (read: "pecking order"); their houses are full of treachery; therefore they have become great and rich, they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of wickedness; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall not I punish them for these things, says the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?" (Jer. 5:26-29)
The really disturbing part is that this doesn't apply just to Israel "A nation such as this" could be anyone. Or everyone.
However, Jeremiah brings hope: "If you truly do justice one with another, if you do not opress the stranger, the fatherless or the widow...then I will let you dwell in this place" (Jer 7:5-7) Nobody listened (Jer 34:3-17), and Jeremiah warned that the Babylonians would invade. They did, and the Babylonian capitivity began.
"How the faithful City [Jerusalem] Has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in here, but now murders. Your silver has become dross [corrupt?] your wine is mixed with water...Every one loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the fatherless, and the widow's cause does not come to them. Therefore the Lord says..."Ah, I will vent my wrath on my enemies, and avenge myself on my foes. I will turn my hand against you, and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all of your alloy. And I will restore you judges as at the first, and your councellors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." (Is. 1:21-26)
Jesus "spent most of his time not among the rich and powerful in Jerusalem, but among the poor in the economic backwater of Galilee" -Ronald J Sider, (Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger p59) He fed the hungry - despite conservative claims that this sort of thing "traps people in poverty". He healed the sick andblind - and told people that those don't feed and clothe the hungry, visit prisoners etc., will go straight to eternal hell. (Mt. 25:31-46) The nonsense of conservative "tough love" is shown with a negative statement, and a positive one: "He who oppresses a poor person insults God" - Prov. 14:31 "He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD" (prov. 19:17)
Thy enemies:
Conservative Rome, with a poverty rate of 95% and a child mortality rate of 50%, persecuted Christians for their ideals of spiritual equality between classes and gender, rejection of the cult of the emperor, etc.
Christianity isn't the only case of God's leftism
THE PROPHET Kahlil Gibran:
"I have seen you prostate yourself and worship your own freedom"
"What are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow?"
"If it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that the throne erected within you is destroyed."
"your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself. They came through you but not from you, and though they are with you yet they belong not to you"
Philanthropists of the rich: "it is when you give of yourself that you truly give...There are those who give little of what they have - and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome."
Buddha:
"The miser who hoards up his riches will have no profit"
"He who struggles in the interest of self, so that he may be great or powerful or rich or famous, will have no reward"
"I have recognized the illusory nature of wealth and will not take poison as food" -
Some questions answered:
Are there religeous anarchists?
Are there progressive evangelists?
Are there progressive buddhists?
Did the US founders intend a Christian republic?
Is the basis for all morality in the Bible?
Could I see a liberal view of Christian ethics?
Is the death penalty Christian?
Where can I find a debate on Catholocism and birth control?
What about all of the other arguments?
What does the Pope think about Capitalism?
Can there be Female Catholic Priests?
Should men be ordaned? (humour)
Deep thoughts from the "Christian coalition"
The Christian coalition claims that sex education caused the so-called "sexual revolution" (It's assumed we think that's bad thing) Anybody with any knowledge of history knows that people have been horny ever since Moses came down with the ten commandments - every generation thinks that its children are turning into sex fiends, for example, the depression era "lost generation", or the phenomenal amount of teenage prostitution (to match up with teenage soldiers) during the second world war. The gilded age was the golden era of child prostitution, yet the Victorians didn't show students how to unroll a condom. It isn't sex crazed kids who go to Bangkok brothels while on business trips - it's "Christian" businessmen. Methinks they doth protest too much!
An authoritarians try to take the place of God (often deliberately, like cult leaders) and therefore are an insult to God. This applies to practically all religions.
Taoism and Buddhism (especially Zen) are also quite democratic/anarchistic, and are quite self-explanatory.
"When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist". --Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife
Anarchism (democracy) plus Christianity. Jacques Ellul said that "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and that this is the only 'political anti-political' position in accord with Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall, _Demanding the Impossible_, p. 75] and I couldn't possibly agree more. After all, what part of "no authority except God" is too hard to understand?
Jesus doesn't have a high opinion of property and capitalism - his smashing of the temple-market being the most obvious, but also his voluntary poverty, his comments on the corrupting effects of wealth and his liking of the Biblical teaching that the world was created for humanity to be enjoyed by all. Indeed, the early Christian churches (Long before the oxymoron that is "state religion") was based upon communistic sharing of material goods.
St. Augustine ("Love God and do what you will") gave an example of property and the state: "An apt and true reply was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride. "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."" --St. Augustine, _The City of God_
The history of Christian anarchism includes the "Heresy of the Free Spirit" in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the Anabaptists in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within Christianity surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of William Blake and the American Adam Ballou, who reached anarchist conclusions in his _Practical Christian Socialism_ in 1854. However, Christian anarchism became clearly defined within the anarchist/democratic movement with the work of the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider that a true Christian must oppose authoritarians. From his reading of the Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:
"ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing wrong." [_The Kingdom of God is Within You_, p. 242]
Thus a true Christian isn't authoritarian, and doesn't deal with authoritarians. Speaking of doing unto others... "Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for themselves but for others?" [_The Anarchist Reader_, p. 306]
Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist society. As Max Nettlau argues, the "great truth stressed by Tolstoy is that the recognition of the power of the good, of goodness, of solidarity - and of all that is called love - lies within *ourselves*, and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised *in our own behaviour.*" [_A Short History of Anarchism_, pp. 251-2]
One area in particular that Tolstoy in which Tolstoy was active is the fight against land as property: "were it not for the defence of landed property, and its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there is still so much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always those who take part in government violence, who have the advantage." [Op. Cit., p. 307] Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in anything beyond use require state violence to protect them (possession is "always protected by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence."[Ibid.]). Indeed, he argues that:
"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor -- while thousands of people close by have no fuel [wood] -- need protection by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations of workmen have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one owner, who has held them back to sell at triple price in time of famine." [Ibid.]
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore,"he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [_The Kingdom Of God is Within You_, p. 338, p. 339]
Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which a moral, self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party [friend] of violence can take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378]
From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within society and create a just society. In Nettlau's words, he "asserted . . . *resistance to evil*; and to one of the ways of resistance - by active force - he added another way: *resistance through disobedience, the passive force.*" [Op. Cit., p. 251] In his ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by ruralRussian life *and* the works of Peter Kropotkin (such as _Fields, Factories and Workshops_), P-J Proudhon and Henry George.
Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain out of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation of peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a free society (although Gandhi was not actually an anarchist).
The *Catholic Worker Group* in the United States was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day, a Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded the paper the _Catholic Worker_ in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in general can also be found in *Liberation Theology* movements in Latin and South America who combine Christian ideas with social activism amongst the working class and peasantry (although we should note that Liberation Theology is more generally inspired by "state socialist" ideas rather than democratic/anarchist ones).
Among anarchists and liberals there is quite a lot of anti-religious feeling, particularly towards Christianity. One of the reasons is that religions tend to be highjacked by conservatives, the most obvious being Catholicism in the middle ages. There are many other objections, many such as " "if gawd's so great why don't I have a bigger #$%#?" Here I will only deal with intelligent objections.
Since nobody's been hit by lightning for asking that question I would consider God an intellectual authority, or at worst a "guru". While God obviously has the ability to use force, and does every day, this happens in a system of predicable physics, like a computer, not just on humanistic whims (ie hitting atheists with lightning). All of the problems of authority by humans simply doesn't apply to God - and if you still don't agree, you can always become an Atheist.
Super-human. Yes, humans are great, but not ultimate.
Religion can be anything. Just put the word "God" into a sentence and you're talking religion. While it's easy to remember Slaveowners quoting genesis or the American religious right trying to recreate the dark ages, we tend to forget that it was Quakers etc. that fought hardest against slavery, or that Christian monasteries kept thought and literacy alive in Europe, or that civil rights was led by Christians etc. (I'll provide more examples later)
According to Emma Goldman, in her essay _The Failure of Christianity_, "Everywhere and always, since its very inception, Christianity has turned the earth into a vale of tears...". As if the earth was better beforehand!
"The Christian religion and morality extols the glory of the Hereafter, and therefore remains indifferent to the horrors of the earth." The comfort and hope of Christianity help tone down the horrors of the earth - this is why Marx considered religion "the opiate of the masses" - because it makes people content. If makes people content because it tones down the horrors of the earth! Do we also consider sunshine and butterflies to be opiate, because they make people content?
Emma Goldman, an atheist, quoted the sermon on the mount: ""Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled,"... Righteousness grows out of liberty, of social and economic opportunity and equality." I agree with this, but... "how can the meek, the poor in spirit, ever establish such a state of affairs?" All I can say is, watch us.
Heaven, the Hereafter, (IMO, of course) is misinterpreted by just about everybody. Heaven is not some place already in progress (she makes this assumption in this essay), it is a time after the battle of armageddon, after all of the bad guys (authoritarians) are defeated. Most people, used to being passive under authority, expected armageddon to come along by itself. After about 2000 years of waiting, it's time for a new idea.
I consider armageddon to be the fight against authority, which grows in intensity every day. I believe that heaven will not be created by any authority, Caesar, Jesus, God - anybody. It will be made by the common people. It is not a bunch of clouds - it is utopia. All of the stuff about resurrection I assume will be done by new technologies, or maybe Christ will return once the world is safe for Christianity - when all authority is gone.
"The Romans, strong and unflinching as they were, must have laughed in their sleeves over the man who talked repentance and patience, instead of calling to arms against the despoilers and oppressors of his people." The British laughed at Ghandi as well - but this essay appeared in 1913, before passive resistence as we know it existed.
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
I interpret this as "let Caesar keep what he made" (nothing!) And give to God what God made (everything!). Basically, this is a strong argument against to concept of property, private or public. The only "kind" of property is God's property.
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven."
Some call this a justification for slavery, but I call it pacifism. When authority slaps your face, do you accept the punishment and meekly obey? No, you offer the other cheek. That's called passive resistence.
"Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
This translates into "please don't arrest me".
Emma Goldman said "Christ was a reformer, ever ready to patch up, to fulfill, to carry on the old order of things; never to destroy and rebuild." She obviously hadn't read the book of Revelation (revolution!). When considering the battle of armageddon, everything else seems reformist in comparism!
"That may account for the fellow- feeling all reformers have for him." All? Much as I respect Emma as a strong feminist and anarchist, I don't have a high opinion of people who use words like "all" or "never" etc. In fact, I consider much of these old essays to be a risk of becoming doctrine. Write your own ideas in your own words!
"Indeed, the whole history of the State, Capitalism, and the Church proves that they have perpetuated themselves because of the idea "I come not to destroy the law." This is the key to authority and oppression." I'll also add that old essays like this are obsolete - this one was obviously written before communism.
Christianity is called "humiliating dependency". Depending on a human being is humiliating - but depending on God? Of course we depend on God - we depend on everything from gravity to waffles, all of which are made (directly or indirectly) by God..
"The teachings of Christ and of his followers have failed because they lacked the vitality to lift the burdens from the shoulders of the race; they have failed because the very essence of that doctrine is contrary to the spirit of life, exposed to the manifestations of nature, to the strength and beauty of passion." They failed because they were swallowed by establishment - notice that puritanism, intolerence etc all came AFTER christianity became establishment, not before, when nothing was considered "unchristian" about bathhouse orgies etc.
Goldman concludes her essay with "Never can Christianity..." never this, impossible that. The vital signs of doctrine. (Even Jesus gives the rich a chance to get to heaven - if they can cram a camel through the eye of a needle (or whatever))
