A very thought-provoking poll was released recently on Americans and their attitudes toward Christianity and capitalism. The survey found that more Americans believe that Christianity and the free market are in conflict (44 percent) than those think they are not (36 percent). This holds regardless of religious affiliation. Women, Democrats and those of low income are more likely to believe the two are incompatible. Meanwhile, Tea Party members, Republicans, college-educated and more affluent people were more likely to believe the two are not at odds.
White evangelicals are more likely than the general population to believe unregulated businesses would behave ethically. Meanwhile, Christians of color overwhelmingly (76 percent) want the church to speak out on social justice matters, and economic issues such as foreclosures devastating the community.
So what should we make of this? At first glance, it tells me that there is hope. Today's economic troubles are opening the eyes of Americans, perhaps. The inequality in this nation -- and the flagrant manner in which concentrated power flaunts its excesses -- is so perverse that it offends the moral sensibilities and belief systems of everyday folks. If there is any chance of reforming or changing our institutions, it all begins with asking if we expect -- or demand -- moral and ethical institutions that bend towards justice. Like the flailing, bankrupt Communist system in the final days of the USSR, American capitalism has revealed itself as a sham religion that promises much and operates under deceptive rhetoric, yet ultimately benefits a scant few. Right now, the system seems to be thriving perversely on the economic inequality that is eating society alive. Wall Street profits and executive bonuses are up, rewards for their plunder of the rest of us.
And yet, isn't this the way it was supposed to be? Did capitalism ever have a moral compass? And haven't capitalism and Christianity always operated in tandem for centuries?
Slavery has to be the ultimate example of unfettered, unregulated markets, laissez faire in its purest sense. The Church blessed slave ships and expeditions to rape and pillage indigenous peoples, and one slave ship was even named Jesus. Earlier forms of the Christian Right endorsed the economic exploitation of slavery and Jim Crow segregation and found justification in the Bible. Even today, some so-called Christians give their stamp of approval on cuts in crucial government programs that serve poor families, or the despoliation of the land by oil companies in the name of economic growth. They even compare the hand of the free market to the hand of God. After all, gun manufacturers have to make a buck, too, the way Jesus wanted it.
So, is capitalism at odds with Christianity? I suppose it all depends on which Christianity you use as your point of reference. The Christianity of the right wing is the imperial, status quo Christianity that helps prop up the rich and the powerful. Then there's the other side of the coin -- the Christianity that believes in social justice, liberation theology and caring for the least of these. This is the Christianity that believes it is easier for the camel to pass through an eye of a needle than it is for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God, and is the Jesus who drove the money-changers, the Wall Street bankers of the day, out of the temple. Adherents to this school fought for the abolition of slavery and struggled for racial and economic equality in the civil rights movement. Like Martin Luther King, they fought for sanitation workers.
The early twenty-first century is not the first time that capitalism has run roughshod over the people's rights, nor, sadly, will it likely be the last. The problem is that the counterbalance to capitalism -- call it a social safety net, social welfare, the New Deal, socialism or what have you -- has eroded in the U.S. And while good people of faith (or no faith at all) struggle to restore it, other so-called people of faith welcome its demise, if they do not manipulate their religion to justify that demise. Sadly, that is as much a condemnation of religion and the way it is practiced as it is an indictment of capitalism.
It is easy for Americans to point to the oppression in certain Muslim nations and shake their heads in disbelief. It is quite another thing to look inward at the injustice, the poverty, the hunger and the unemployment that is tolerated in a nation where so many would preach to others about Jesus Christ.
Regardless of faith, Americans should be challenged to expect better from government and from society. Many followers of the cult of capitalism drank the kool-aid, believing in the virtues of chasing a dollar above all else. They were convinced, as some still are convinced despite the lack of evidence, that by redistributing the nation's money in an upward direction, it would trickle down. And why would you want to tax the rich when capitalism has convinced you that you will become rich someday? Of course, for most of us that won't happen in the land of opportunity, which is the least economically mobile society in the developed world. Moreover, the Tea Party-infused GOP has convinced its followers to vote against their own interests. The diehard followers of the right wing oppose healthcare and social programs that ameliorate the effects of capitalism on the grounds that blacks and Latinos will benefit the most.
Rather than blindly place our faith in institutions that are paving the way for our downfall -- yet we dare not touch them because we deem them sacrosanct -- America must strive to build systems that nurture us and make us whole. We can create whatever we want. The propped-up, broken structures need to be fixed or replaced. Capitalism as practiced in the U.S. -- under-regulated, unaccountable and based on winners and losers and short-term gain -- is a system of privatized profits and socialized risk. And it is killing us. But should an economic system be moral? I certainly hope so.
Follow David A. Love on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidalove
Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman: The Problems, Potential and Power of Religious Belief
Rev. Larry Hollon: Serving Others to Change the World
I see no particular reason that Christians should take sides in this debate, what Christians should do is remind those in positions of authority or power (and there will be such in any system) that God holds them accountable for the welfare of those over whom they exercise authority. This may mean deviating from their economic theory of choice when conditions demand it.
What's more, it’s a very strange god, the one that would create the sort of situation we have today where people are born into their religions, that we are likely to find our religions by an accident of where we are born (e.g if someone is born in Pakistan they will more than likely be indoctrinated into, or choose to follow Islam, whereas if you’re born in Alabama, the odds are overwhelming that you’ll end up a Christian etc.) and according to these religions only one of them is right, and the other one leads to eternal damnation. This is a strangely provincial god that would let this happen. To be a Christian you have to actually believe this.
I could argue for days and days about why capitalism is actually better for the poor. But I will not go into that right now. I would recommend to you, however, Church and the Market by Thomas Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, as well as just reading a few articles on Mises.org. One of my greatest frustrations is that so many Christians, who's hearts are in the right places, for sure, don't understand capitalism and how it is not only the only system compatible with Christianity in a moral sense, but it is also the best way to actually achieve the goals of Christians and all well-meaning people of helping the poor, etc.
DO NOT mistake what we have now with capitalism. We are a very corporatist society, which is just another brand of socialism. Only maybe 1% of all human civilizations have been truly captialist. Most of the problems we have today are government-caused.
If two (gay) people want to sign a contract between themselves on a mutually voluntary basis, they are doing absolutely no harm to anyone else. Therefore, the government is not permitted to step in and stop them from doing so. It is their right to exercise their free will (given to them by God) so long as they don't hurt others.
Now, the rest of us don't have to call them "married". The government's only role is to honor contracts between individuals. If churches want to marry people, that is a private matter. Churches don't have to marry gays, but the government must respect their contracts. St. Paul again teaches us that Christians cannot force non-Christians to live a Christian life. In this way, the right is very hypocritical with their opposition to freedom of association (when gays are involved), with drug laws, prostitution, gambling, etc. Since these things do not harm others, they must be permitted in a free society. Christians must also refrain from using force to stop them. People must voluntarily choose to follow God.
Libertarianism simply holds that each human being, by the very fact they are a human being,has a right to liberty and property so long as the excercise of those rights do not interfere with the exercise of those rights of others. That is all libertarianism says and all social and economic position stem from that simple truth.
Now, I claim that Christianity completely agrees with that. ALL human beings have those rights simple by the very fact that they were created in God's image and were endowed with these rights by God. God gave us free will and does not force us to follow him. Humans are only allowed to use force against another in self defense.
Both Jesus and St. Paul tell us that committing a sin in order to fufill a commandment is still sinful. The means do not justify the ends. Socialist programs like welfare are only achievable through theft. The government performs these programs solely be taking from one group of citizens and giving to another. It is theft and Christianity does not permit that. Private charity is the only morally right way to help the poor and indeed, Jesus commands us to do that. However, using force to make somone be "charitable" is entirely against Christianity as well as libertarianism.
I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say or you didn't quite get what I said.
They justify that doctrine with one verse from Luke 19:26, which states that "to everyone who has, more will be given, but from those that have not, even what they have will be taken away.”
However, even though we generally reap what we sow because in this universe there is a natural karmic law of reciprocity and cause and effect at work, greedy people can alter the natural system, break that natural law and treat their fellow human beings unfairly, to say the least.
Besides that, that one sentence from Luke has been misunderstood and misused because it has been taken out of context. If we look at what Jesus taught in context, we can see that he also said that it is wrong to reap what you did not sow, or profit unjustly because you were tempted by greed and lust for money.
Moreover, Jesus said that it is wrong to treat others unfairly, and that you should do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
The above was gleaned from an article titled Poverty: America's Hidden Shame, at http://messenger2.cjcmp.org/poverty.html
There's no natural law of goodness in our universe and no ultimate judge that will set wrongs right. It's up to us. It's hard work and we have a lot to do, but no cosmic help is coming. May as well face it and roll up your shirt sleeves.
Regarding kadellagroove's remark below "you must profit at the expense of another." I can't comprehend why the wealthy are reluctant to share more of their wealth via higher wages for employees or charitable donations, for example. Are two Rolls-Royces better than one? Why the obsession with one-upmanship to your neighbour? Is their no social conscience?
Take those, what are they called, 1%ers or 400 peeps with the 90% of the wealth, and put them in rehab for addiction to power and greed. They need it as much as a monk needs a shopping mall.
Thanks for the interesting reply. Never thought of it as addiction.
I notice in the US (not so apparent here in the UK) that philanthropy must be seen in very public, and highy publicised, form. If it was anonymous, you can bet most would drop out.
There are have been many shifts in basic ideology of capitalism since it formed in northern europe a few hundred years ago. All these shifts were results of problems and challenges in society that dealt with the current system, and the growth of the interconnectedness of the globe.
So... why can't we move onto the next phase based on the problems and challenges we are seeing today? Its a very good question.
I think mainly the powers at wheel are just drastically more powerful than they ever have been before and they like the current system. it serves them well.
Capitalism is inherently unChristian. It is based on the idea that you must profit at the expense of another, that you can create wealth our of wealth, and that the main goal in your existence ought to be private ownership (of anything and everything)
Carl Sagan brings up a great point in his book "the variance of scientific experience" which basically says that religion has historically played a vital role in counter establishment movements based on morality. The American civil rights movement, The indian independence movement, And the ending of the Apartheid in South Africa to name a few.
He was urging religion to once again take a stand again nuclear weapons and war. But I think the message is clearly applicable here.
Our current system of economics threatens the survival of the majority of people. It IS a moral issue and religions should step up.
So what would a Christian alternative to capitalism be? I have seen no meaningful suggestions and I suspect there is no alternative.
A genuine free market might actually work. But so many people are working to get the government to give an advantage that we never see a free market. So the only positive action that I could support would be putting an end to all special favors for players in to market. If we must do favors let's do them for the old and the poor and the disadvantaged and not for the wealthy.
My second point is that, given everything I just said, why is it that we cannot move onto to the next phase of capitalism? Perhaps we can call it moral capitalism?
The reason that new systems are not proposed is because there is so much power and money invested in keeping the system the way it is. Those few people who are massively benefiting from the current system go to great lengths to stop that conversation from happening.
Why can't we create a system that blends socialism and capitalism and other new ideas into a system that takes into account human greed and corruption and the limits of our natural world?
Another reason I call what we see today monopoly capitalism is because its as if everyone started playing a monopoly game and forgot it was a game. We created this society... these terms and rules were not here before us. So... lets remember that, and change the system to work better for us.
We don't have to "create" anything, this wheel needs no reinvention, we simply need to take the same detours that have been taken by most of the western industrialized world.
But, and its a big one, our capitalists are the best armed in the world and control the largest security and police apparatus in history and threats to their bottom line make their trigger fingers itch like crazy.
State ownership of vital industries and services like utlitites and schools. Salary caps on pay. Wealth tax assessments on accumulated wealth. Pensions for all.
Capitalism as a game. It's been proposed before. The safety net catches those who fail at the game.