Because they rob the weak, and the needy groan, I will now arise," says the LORD; "I will grant safety to whoever longs for it...
They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the LORD as their refuge...
LORD, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy mountain?
Whoever walks without blame, doing what is right, speaking truth from the heart; Who does not slander a neighbor, does no harm to another, never defames a friend; Who keeps an oath despite the cost, lends no money at interest, accepts no bribe against the innocent...
Arrogant scoundrels pursue the poor; they trap them by their cunning schemes.
The wicked even boast of their greed; these robbers curse and scorn the LORD...
They wait in ambush near towns; their eyes watch for the helpless. to murder the innocent in secret.
They lurk in ambush like lions in a thicket, hide there to trap the poor, snare them and close the net.
The helpless are crushed, laid low; they fall into the power of the wicked...
Rise up, LORD God! Raise your arm! Do not forget the poor!
You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers.
For the rich men of the city are full of violence,
Her residents speak lies,
And their tongue is deceitful in their mouth…
Hear this, you who trample the needy, to do away with the humble of the land, saying,
“When will the new moon be over,
So that we may sell grain,
And the sabbath, that we may open the wheat market,
To make the bushel smaller and the shekel bigger,
And to cheat with dishonest scales,
So as to buy the helpless for money
And the needy for a pair of sandals,
And that we may sell the refuse of the wheat?”...
You win justice for the orphaned and oppressed; no one on earth will cause terror again.
Listen, my beloved brothers. Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? But you dishonored the poor person. Are not the rich oppressing you? And do they themselves not haul you off to court? Is it not they who blaspheme the noble name that was invoked over you?...
Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.
Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter. You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance...
God has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
GOD HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS;
And sent away the rich empty-handed...
Woe to you who are rich...
"Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.
"For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be."
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Protesting Wall Street?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Wow, Dan! It almost appears as if you're trying to make some kind of connection between all those tracts and the losers protesting all over the place. That wouldn't be the case, would it?
And from these verses we see that God, not government, will take care of the poor. And we, as individuals who serve God will listen to His direction and do so ourselves; not require others to do so.
In the meantime, thou shalt not covet the 1%'s house.
Doug, as we can see in these passages, protesting greed does not, in ANY fashion, equate to covet, so don't be silly on that point. (I'm not sure that you're being silly, but too many of your comrades on the right equate denunciations of the sins of greed with "covetousness," and that take on it would just be slanderous and outright false misrepresentation of people if it weren't so darn silly.)
As to this...
And from these verses we see that God, not government, will take care of the poor.
As we can see from the verses, God DOES look out for the least of these, but God expects US TO DO THE SAME. It is why, for instance, in the OT nation of Israel, there were laws in place - at the national level - that required some setting aside of personal wealth for the purpose of providing for the poor and for foreigners.
Agreed?
AND, it is why, in the OT nation of Israel, that there were supposed to be laws in place to prevent the accumulation of wealth.
Yes, God expects US individually to tend the least of these. But there is NOT ONE THING in the Bible that says we, individually, can't decide to tackle the problems greed, consumerism and poverty at a societal level.
Not ONE thing in the Bible saying we ought not make such decisions democratically or in the form of a representational republic. And, in fact, the OT model found in the nation of Israel (both when it was more of a theocracy AND when it was a monarchy) says that is EXPECTED that we'd have rules in place at a national level.
Agreed?
Marshall, I don't know what you're saying. My point here is that the Bible is FULL (A to Z) of folk protesting the sins of greed and consumerism and the oppression that seems to come hand in hand with an over-accumulation of wealth.
In that sense, the Wall St protestors have much in common with the biblical prophets.
I'd take them more seriously if it weren't for the fact that globaly, they are the 1%.
That and the fact that they rely too much on the fruits of the corporations they want to get rid of.
How about Michael Moore trying to dodge Piers Mogan's insistence that he (Moore) is part of the 1%. Just priceless.
I take it you didn't read the linked blog post. I explain my reasoning fully there. Protesting is not always coveting, but a lot of this is, and protesting greed is the cover for it.
And if greed is the problem, God is the solution. Certainly not government.
Israel was God's chosen people following the direction of God's prophets. I don't think that because Israel was, at different points, a theocracy and a monarchy, that we should endeavor to make the US either of those forms of government. Many of the civil rules for Israel were for Israel and its special, unique situation.
Still, much of what was done for the poor and the foreigner was done through the church. I would prefer it done that way, even in a multicultural, multi-religious society. That would be more democratic (and efficient). Vote with your money rather than forcing charity upon others.
Doug...
I take it you didn't read the linked blog post. I explain my reasoning fully there
I read it. No doubt there ARE some in these crowds who merely want someone else to pay for what they want. I doubt seriously that this is the case for the majority. I suspect the majority only want the wealthy to pay their fair share. They want to denounce the greed of the wealthy, of "those who would add house unto house" of those who'd "sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
MY point was that, inasmuch as they are protesting greed, these protesters are sounding quite biblical. To the extent that they are merely claiming they want what someone else has, they are being just as greedy as those who accumulate more and more and more, to obscene degrees.
Doug...
I don't think that because Israel was, at different points, a theocracy and a monarchy, that we should endeavor to make the US either of those forms of government. Many of the civil rules for Israel were for Israel and its special, unique situation.
Nor do I want to see us try to implement religious rules for the sake of somebody's religion. Thus, I'd appreciate it if the religious right would keep their religious rules out of our bedrooms and what folk ingest.
To the extent that the religious right tries to implement religious laws when it comes to bedroom practices and drugs, but NOT when it comes to assisting the poor, they are exposing a bit of hypocrisy. Seems to me.
The point of citing Israel was to point out that the folk in the Bible were NOT adverse to implementing reasonable, just LAWS to keep the wealthy from accumulating too much and to keep the poor from starving.
We can debate whether or not such ideas are a good idea to implement in modern America, but we can't reasonably say that there is no biblical mandate for Israel to do just that.
I'm all in favor of the private sector (faith groups included) taking care of the needs of the poor. The thing is, there is NOT ONE THING stopping the private sector from trying to do so.
My first option would be for the private sector to take action on these fronts.
In the meantime, if some folk find some reasonable civic reasons for doing the same as Israel did by law in their day, I'm not wholly opposed to that, as a second option.
The ball is in the private sector's court. Lead the way, by all means.
Craig...
I'd take them more seriously if it weren't for the fact that globaly, they are the 1%.
This is an EXCELLENT point, Craig. Certainly to be remembered. Those protesting are GLOBALLY the 1%.
The thing is, I expect that if you asked them, they'd be of the group that is fine with the notion of the US investing more in foreign aid, and hopefully, they'd be doing some of that sort of investment themselves on the private level. If they're anything like most liberalish types I know - those with any disposable income - they are already doing so.
MY point was that, inasmuch as they are protesting greed, these protesters are sounding quite biblical.
The Communists of the 20th century couched their rhetoric and politics in this same manner (and indeed, communists and socialists of all sorts are making common common cause with OWS). Inasmuch as Communism of the 20th century spoke against greed, I suppose it sounded quite biblical to some. However, there is much more to all of this than that one little point.
The guy who bought the website OccupyWallStreet.org back in June and spurred on this "grass roots" movement is about as anarchist and anti-capitalist as you can get. Based on polling, the protesters are generally of that bent as well, about a third of whom would gladly resort to violence to get their way.
This is not about more opportunity, or at least that's not the main thrust. It's not about greed; it's (ironically) about taking from those who have. That's the entire impetus behind noting this fabled 99%/1% bit. If this was really about money, I'd expect to see an Occupy Hollywood movement, but, not-so-strangely, the typical supporters of the Left are exempt from scorn. And thus it's exposed as far more a political statement than an economic statement, or even a moral one.
To the extent that the religious right tries to implement religious laws when it comes to bedroom practices and drugs, but NOT when it comes to assisting the poor, they are exposing a bit of hypocrisy. Seems to me.
The religious right is busy doing things for the poor rather than making inefficient government the distribution channel. I'm sure this has been pointed out to you before, at least by me, but by way of reminder; conservatives do better in charitable giving and volunteering than liberals. Get off your high horse, man.
But for liberals, government with more power and authority is always the answer to any problem. It's the answer that the OWS'ers are, naturally, proposing for the problem of money influencing Washington. Money buys too much power, so let's increase the power available. What an upside-down view of the problem!
conservatives do better in charitable giving and volunteering than liberals
And as I have pointed out before, I doubt seriously that these numbers would hold up IF you removed "charitable giving" that goes to support their own church (padded pews, paying for staff, big buildings and all that infrastructure) from the equation. I think supporting your own church is a great thing, but it's hardly "charitable giving" in the sense that they're giving much money to help those in need. For most of us, giving to our church is a way of giving to ourselves.
Again, I'm not knocking that, I'm just saying that it's not really giving to charity. And yes, some churches take some PORTION of their income to give to actual charity (ie, helping the poor, sick, foreigners, needy, etc), but for most US churches, that is a small portion and, as noted, I expect that giving to actual charities would balance out if you removed the "giving to one's self" component from the equation.
But for liberals, government with more power and authority is always the answer to any problem.
Nearly anytime someone makes a blanket statement like this, you can be sure it's a false statement. That's certainly true in this case.
Come brother, be reasonable. Wanna try again?
Gov't IS the answer in some instances. We need some way to insure cooperation between states, to monitor our factories to make sure they're not causing harm, to make sure they're not dumping waste into our rivers or oil into our ocean. We need some entity to put out our fires, to keep the garbage off our streets, to police our neighborhoods. We NEED gov't in some cases. And where we need it, we want to see it operate efficiently and do its job well.
This complaint would be more believable if you weren't of the tribe that wants gov't to tell us who we can and can't marry and what we can and can't ingest. If you weren't of the tribe that wants more and more roads paid for by gov't money and more and more invasions paid for by gov't money and more and more prisons paid for by gov't money.
We DO need gov't in some instances. We DON'T need them in all. We need SMART gov't where we do need it.
Wanna try again?
"I doubt seriously that these numbers would hold up IF you removed "charitable giving" that goes to support their own church..."
"Nearly anytime someone makes a blanket statement like this, you can be sure it's a false statement. That's certainly true in this case."
Ooh! Well done, anonymous!
From Arthur Brooks via Doug's blog:
"Religion is the single biggest predictor as to whether someone will be charitable. Religious people give to four times as much to charity, and not just to their own church but also to outside organizations and even explicitly non-religious charities."
Brooks breaks this down further and shows that conservative Christians/religious folk rank highest in giving to all manner of charitable endeavors, many of them non-religious.
"It is why, for instance, in the OT nation of Israel, there were laws in place - at the national level..."
Of course, we're talking about something that was written during a time when history wasn't recorded as we do now, so how the hell can we look to this in any meaningful way?
"In that sense, the Wall St protestors have much in common with the biblical prophets."
Not by a long shot. First of all, you do not accurately interpret what the Biblical characters are saying, and secondly, the people being protested are accused, but not convicted of any wrongdoing. The cries of "greed" are the worst kinds of judgmental crap by people who wouldn't know the first thing about what any of the Wall St. "fat cats" did to acquire their wealth. It's rank class warfare with no substance behind it.
I doubt seriously that this is the case for the majority.
I suspect the majority only want the wealthy to pay their fair share.
All these hunches about OWS, and dismissing all the blatant socialist, covetous rhetoric. You're cherry picking what you want, and in many cases cherry picking what you think they think. They use the word "greed" in a sentence, and immediately you quote Bible verses like that must be what they're thinking. Your politics is informing your religion, rather than the other way around.
And as I have pointed out before, I doubt seriously that these numbers would hold up IF you removed "charitable giving" that goes to support their own church...
Until such time as your hunch is proven, will you accept the facts? Especially the ones that Art noted about giving outside of the church?
(Oh, and I really wish someone, anyone, would put a dollar amount or percentage on what "fair share" means. Otherwise, it's meaningless and can only defined as "more than they pay now".)
Gov't IS the answer in some instances.
Never said it wasn't. For some reason, and it's not just you, liberals hear someone say "smaller government" and immediately assume this means "anarchy". Wanna try again?
This complaint would be more believable if you weren't of the tribe that wants gov't to tell us...
...things you don't like. Whatever. I'm not getting sucked into that tangent.
The point is, OWS is inexplicably protesting the corruption of government (due to big money) by asking that this same government have more power (that would inevitably be bought, again, by big money). It's foolish, and shows how little they understand the problem. But the Left's knee-jerk reaction is 'more government', and this protest brings that truth to light. Again.
Until such time as your hunch is proven, will you accept the facts? Especially the ones that Art noted about giving outside of the church?
If, indeed, it's true, I'd admit it's true. I rather doubt it is, but it's possible, it's just not been my experience. I've delayed responding to this because I was trying to find more info out, but have not.
I found quotes like this from Brooks...
‘Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.’
But that's "religious americans," not specifically conservative Christians.
Beyond that, Brooks is just one researcher. Which is not to discount his research, just saying I'm currently unconvinced that conservative Christians give more to non-church charities than liberal Christians.
If you have more specific quotes/sources you'd like to send my way, I'll check them out.
In the meantime, the point of this post was NOT that these protestors are Christians, NOR to say they're perfect. The point is that folk protesting GREED is very much what we see a BUNCH of in the Bible. Old Testament, New Testament, pretty much every where except in today's churches, where the topic of greed and the problems of wealth and hyperconsumption are rarely dealt with, in my experience and from all evidence that I've seen.
"This complaint would be more believable if you weren't of the tribe that wants gov't to tell us who we can and can't marry..."
Yeah, like children and animals and multiple partners! WE THE PEOPLE are right in limiting marriage as we have for hundreds of years. WE THE PEOPLE are straying by opening up that definition for the sake of carnal desire. I stick with the tribe Dan rejects.
"The point is that folk protesting GREED is very much what we see a BUNCH of in the Bible."
As I indicated, the Bible speaks of actual greed. The protesters are covetous whiners who accuse people they don't know of that which they can't be sure out of their own sense of greed. How easy it is, as well as judgmental, to point to those who have and assume they obtained it unethically. These people are not the least bit Biblical in their actions OR motivations.
Oh really, Marshall? You are divine enough now to know people's intent and what they "really" are protesting? Impressive.
If it were true.
You are divine enough now to know people's intent and what they "really" are protesting? Impressive.
I imagine the same comment could be directed at me, but, as I noted in my blog post, no mind-reading is necessary. Their own words are enough to know that this is not so much about the "1%" wanting too much as it is about the "99%" not having as much. As I've said, just the fact that they're making this "1%/99%" distinction, and calling attention to themselves as "the 99%". "Pay my student loans", "pay for this, pay for that". These are all calls, not for the elimination of greed, but for the money of the wealthy; the transfer of cash from the "1%" to the "99%".
In the meantime, the point of this post was NOT that these protestors are Christians, NOR to say they're perfect. The point is that folk protesting GREED is very much what we see a BUNCH of in the Bible.
If that was what they were protesting, perhaps. But it's simply covetousness cloaked in anti-greed. Again, no one's occupying Hollywood, or unions, or government (well, there was a slight attempt at occupying the federal government, but that fizzled quickly). If it was about greed, it would be about all greed equally. Instead it targets what are thought to be Republican constituents, while Democratic ones get a pass.
It's political. And we know that by what they do and say. No need to read minds.
I found quotes like this from Brooks...
...
But that's "religious americans," not specifically conservative Christians.
But so much of the other quotes and stats point to the fact that, among those religious Americans, it's the conservative ones that give more, in all areas of charity, not just areas where you suspect.
So much of this conversation has been combating your suspicions, doubts and hunches with studies and the words and actions of the OWS protesters. That will not convince you, so I'll leave you with your assumptions.
I said,
"The protesters are covetous whiners who accuse people they don't know of that which they can't be sure out of their own sense of greed."
To which Dan replied
"Oh really, Marshall? You are divine enough now to know people's intent and what they "really" are protesting? Impressive."
Well, thanks, Dan. I guess. I never really considered myself "divine" for seeing the obvious. But apparently, you believe the protesters divine as well if you think that THEY know the intentions of those they are protesting against. You have no trouble making the same judgmental assumptions about a class of people, as if you have any true evidence that indicts them all as "greedy". Shame on you for that and for painting me with a brush better suited for them. And yourself.
Post a Comment