Does capitalism marginalize God? Is he looking for a world theocracy?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Not answering your questions yet but...

If it weren't for capitalism, the church would get its money from what donations? Who would have money to donate to the church to line the Vatican with gold (or yeah and run the schools and stuff)?

So if Marxism is out and capitalism are out, what's left? Barter?

__________________
peace for all
love for all
bliss for all

...may your journey be graceful...

If anything is possible, then the statement, "anything is possible," is possibly false.

I dunno, but I denounce Catholicism...what's my point, you ask? Exactly, I say.

Technically, Capitalism does not exclude barter based trade.

I suppose they could go back to selling indulgences. Worked before...

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Or killing people.

The RCC and many other faith communities have long been opposed to unbridled capitalism and for a very good reason, imo-- there is no safety net to protect those who are or who may become economically destitute. Obviously, all countries today offer at least some help, but with the global economy being the way it is, it tends to create an economic disadvantage for those who do offer more protection.

With the responses that I've seen, it seems that some are more concerned about money than people. Certainly economic well-being is important, but it seems that a faith and/or humanistic priority should put more emphasis on helping those who cannot help themselves.

Shalom,
Vern

That's what charities are for.


Why?

Actually, I tend to agree with you to some extent, though as usual the problem is how far to go (i.e. what is the extent to which I agree).

Asimov suggests that's what charities are for, but I am not comfortable with that notion. Charities often have motives of their own, including religious conversion, but the need to rely on the charity of others is also something of an affront to one's own dignity. No doubt, there will be those who say that the indigent have no business have a sense of dignity, but we'd just have to agree to disagree on that point. It is a plain, indisputable fact of life that bad things happen, and that there are those who wind up in unsalvageable situations for many reasons, a lot of which involve no real fault of their own.

My humanity makes me care about that. (This is generally true of those involved in charities, too, I realize.)

The problem often seems to me to be one of balance. Society's economic health depends on the ability to create wealth, and the creation of wealth seems to depend on the willingness of society's members to invest (money, effort, creativity, risk) in order to gain some return. That's the essence of capitalism, and to that extent, capitalism is a "good thing."

However, if the economy can generate sufficient wealth to be able to share some of it with those who are not in the mainstream for one reason or another, then it seems to me that it is both socially and economically wise to do so.

But hold on! If it is too easy, or if the payout is big enough, not to need to invest as we said above, then the likelihood of more and more people falling out of the productive side and into the indigent (only without cause this time) side increase.

So perhaps we need to continually work out the balance of how to care for those who can't, which the church would like to do, but how to ensure that the resources are there to do the caring in the first place, which capitalism seeks to do.

And there isn't anything more political than that, I should imagine!

Although I agree that many people seem more concerned about money than people, I think we shall just have to remember the most important lesson of all. I cannot change other people. I can only change myself. So, what should I do about it, if I see it as a problem?

Allen

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Asimov:>>That's what charities are for.<<

Charities have their usefullness, but they cannot handle all situations that well. During the Great Depression, contributions towards charities dried up, leaving many very destitute. Tax monies that are contributed to our social welfare system do not leave the economy and can, thusly, actually stimulate the economy. The poor spend a higher percentage of their money locally, whereas wealthy investors often invest in foreign markets, which in not altogether "bad" either since that money, if invested wisely, will come back later.

>>Why?<<

Because Torah mandated both charity and governmental involvement. In the Christian scriptures there is a different arrangement in that the Romans were the government, so Jewish Law had no control over them. However, Jews still contributed to the Temple tax, and the Sanhedrin, which in essence was our "government", which helped those who needed it.

I have no doubt that Jesus would have people being put ahead of politics and economics. I do believe he would feel that any responsible government has to take the welfare of its citizens first and foremost.

Shalom,
Vern