Teabagger claims Jesus is weeping over Pope's recent statement

[47of74]

Another day, another teabagger making a fool of himself;

Tea party activist Jonathon Moseley published a World Net Daily column Sunday that challenged the pope’s interpretation of the Bible, saying that Jesus had addressed his comments about helping the poor to individuals, not the government.

Moseley, a Virginia business and criminal defense attorney, supports his claim with a verse from the Book of Luke in which Jesus declines to act as arbitrator when someone asks him to compel a brother to divide their family inheritance.

“In just one verse, we see that God rejects the left-wing ‘Jesus Christ supported socialism’ heresy,” Moseley writes. “When Jesus was asked to support redistribution of wealth — to tell one brother to share the family inheritance with the other — Jesus refused.”

“Jesus Christ is weeping in heaven hearing Christians espouse a socialist philosophy that has created suffering and poverty around the world,” Moseley writes. “It is impossible to love one’s neighbor as yourself without fighting against socialism, meaning government meddling in private lives.”

[rustbeltvoice]

1. repeating my response from a similar DU thread

Christ the logician

Yes, i am familiar with these lines of propaganda. I don't need to know who is Moseley, they are legion. Such pseudo-Christians, or neo-Pharisees search to find a phrase they can wrench out of context, and graft onto their agenda.

One typical fundamental argument this sort uses, says Jesus speaks only to the individual (this is a basis of protestantism). No, Jesus speaks to all men. All men are brothers, and this was presented early in Genesis. Cain said to God, "And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother's keeper?". -- Genesis iv. 9. Cain was wrong. This message is re-inforced in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which is in the Gospel of Luke x. 30-7. We are responsible for each other, a good neighbour (and by extension--a Christian) is one that helps those in need. We are a community. Christianity is a communal religion, it is not an individual pursuit.

Christ was a logician. As Christ logically taught we have only one master: it is God or Mammon. This principle is even taught in some business schools, in that, they acknowledge one can not concentrate on two demands at once. One will be primary.

No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. -- Matthew vi. 23.

Capitalism (which was generated in the area where Calvinistic protestantism met the industrial revolution) is a form of mammon worship. Capitalism wants to maximise profit. Capital is stored and accumulated labor. Without this cache of labor--there is no capital. Profit is receipts minus expenses. In every capitalistic business exchange the goal is to increase this vigorish. To accelerate and expand the principle: to get the most, while giving the least. To reduce to the ultimate simplicity: everything for nothing. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS WAY. He gave all, and demanded no material in return. A capitalist is a materialist (some of this is merely definition).

Christian economic theories were: the early, simple communism of the early church; the theory of just prices of Augustine; the distributivism of Chesterton. In capitalism, as we know it to-day, there is given great power to the owner, or the chief economic officer, or simply management. In his business he demands to be as powerful as faro of old, an absolute despot. The dissenter is to be crushed, his prescribed role is to be silent and obedient. This is rather standard US business management theory. In regards to the Church of Christ, Peter’s Barque, it is anathema.

The greed of capitalism is complete. Community and justice are not to be considered. The desire is maximisation of profit. How is that done? Reducing cost of production, and increasing the price. When this is done fully, the product which is the goods and the labor would be reduced to zero, and the price would be all. Which is an absurdity. A nothing that costs all. A complete concentration of wealth, with no distribution. To receive everything, to give nothing.

The petty viciousness of the Republicans (or "Conservatives&quot , and their teabagger contingent has no limit. Any action of government that would help the non-rich they would not permit. Their arguments reduce to the principle and cry "the rich are too poor, and the poor too rich; we must rectify this by all means". They worship Mammon, and hate the poor.

[IrishAyes]

3. Bravo. Well said, well said.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

2. First, I want to second rustbeltvoice's post.

Second, I have come across this particular argument from Christian conservatives (which, in the form of economic conservatives, is almost an oxymoron), who say things such as

I have no problem with charity as those are VOLUNTARY. Many times if people run into more serious problems some charities will step in. I do have a problem with government theft or forced charity which is NOT charity at all.

(Actual quote from a conservative on another talkboard.)

Or how about this one, from the Platform of the Libertarian Party of New Jersey:

Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must learn to rely on supportive family, religious institution, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

There are a couple of problems here. First, clearly, neither of these two (and I suspect Mr. Moseley as well) know why the government got into social welfare. It is because private charities, most of whom do yeoman work, were simply unable to serve everyone who needed help.

Any conservatives who are aware of this and still want to do away with government welfare programs are placing ideology ahead of the needs of real people. This is morally bankrupt.

Second, who cares if the giver to charity gets a warm and fuzzy feeling and the taxpayer does not? The welfare or charity recipients certainly don't. They need help, and don't care all that much about the feelings of those who ultimately give the money.

Mr. Moseley comes across as being just one more conservative who does not have a clue about socialism, if he thinks it has anything to do with government-funded social welfare programs. He probably wouldn't recognize an actual socialist if one were marching down the road, waving a red banner and singing "The Internationale". He makes me think of John Kenneth Galbraith's dictum that "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

[IrishAyes]

4. What I said to rustbeltvoice.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

5. Here is a quote from someone not even Rushbo could call a Marxist, Adam Smith

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

Like Democracy in America, The Wealth of Nations is a book that many conservatives praise, but few have ever read.