EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Bible and Ethical Economics
I’d like to join the war against the war against Christmas: a cause bravely championed by muffled voices in the catacombs like Bill O’Reilly at Fox News and Rex Murphy on CBC. So here are some Christmas presents from the Judeo-Christian tradition that I hope will find favor with deniers and those who just don’t care if there’s a God since it would make no practical difference. I’ll draw from the Judeo part, since it’s my background. You can call me Santa.
The early books of the Hebrew Bible contain some amazing laws from biblical times (packaged as divine commandments) that read like Christmas cards to people today who are drowning in debt or who’ve lost cherished homes. Take the law of the Sabbatical year: every seventh year, all debts are forgiven. (In addition the land must lie fallow — something under the tree, as it were, for environmentalists.)
Then there’s the Jubilee year: every 50 years — after seven cycles of seven — all land reverts to its original owners. Under this rule, inequality couldn’t expand endlessly, so that — as in the U.S. — the top 20 per cent own 87.2 per cent of the wealth while the other 80 per cent have 12.8 per cent. Instead, the gap narrows periodically. We’re morally primitive by comparison. In Spain today people lose their homes yet must keep paying the damn mortgage.
These laws used to be viewed as idealized, impractical versions of biblical realities. In my seminary days, I thought of them as evidence for their opposite: societies probably rife with oppressive debt, etc. But it turns out they weren’t unusual. Similar enlightened rules were common in the ancient Mideast. They’re part of a venerable tradition linking economics with morality that reigned until very recent times. In his book, Economics of Good and Evil, Tomas Sedlacek traces it from the Epic of Gilgamesh right to Adam Smith — who Sedlacek says has been misrepresented as trusting the economy to amoral market forces.
Sedlacek is a Czech economist who’s both an academic and popularizer. He advised Vaclav Havel when he was president and he represents the best of the Havelian approach — which it’s nice to mention this Christmas, just after Havel’s death. That approach placed a moral sensibility at the heart of public policy — and not in merely rhetorical or chauvinistic ways: God on our side; My country right or wrong, etc. Sedlacek wants to restore this lost ethical emphasis to economics much as Margaret Atwood resuscitated it in her book, Payback, two years ago. It’s a nice little trend.
Jesus in the New Testament is even more focused on debt, equating it with sin: Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. It goes so far there that God sacrifices his only son — to “redeem” the debt/sins of humanity. That’s a bit of a stretch for some of us but at least, Sedlacek says, a moral thread runs through economics until the modern era, based on a sense of mutual human responsibility. With that moral element now eliminated, you wind up bailing out (“forgiving”) the biggest, most powerful debtor/sinners, i.e. the banks, but doing nothing for the poor and destitute, who were supposed to inherit the Earth.
I know that’s terse and I recommend the book over my summary. But since Sedlacek puts such stress on human sympathy and solidarity — which is another way to say, Peace on Earth, good will toward men — let me mention one more directive from the Hebrew Bible. It’s in the Ten Commandments and may be the only biblical law to forbid an emotion: Thou shalt not covet. What a pointless injunction. We have no control over our emotions; they come to us unbidden. Yet nothing is as destructive to human sympathy and community as envy or jealousy. It’s as if the Bible felt it was necessary to forbid them, even as it knew that was a hopeless order. It chose to at least draw attention to the danger.
I offer these thoughts in the spirit of seasonal gift-giving which, as Sedlacek notes, is a very uneconomic — at least in the modern sense — activity. Nobody uses econometrics to calculate gifts they give or gratitude they feel. The whole process is uneconomic — but only in the withered, current sense.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

51 Comments so far
Show AllPowerful argument and one that I have worked through on a personal level to come the the conclusion that I did not and could not love the God supposedly presented in The Holy Babble( that's funny) as a unified all knowing all powerful unchanging being who just can't manage to do anything without a lot of hit men killing the unbelievers,witches adulterers,fornicators, Caananites, Philistines, heathens, heretics, homosexuals,etc. etc. etc. . I don't think Mr. Salutin is asking readers to endorse the authority of the Bible or any religion, but pointing out that these ancient peoples and cultures, along with their tribal wars and cultural prejudices, also had a profound sense that limits must be placed on the accumulation of wealth and power and that limits must be placed on human treatment of the earth. For me this is important knowledge, the sense that humans have grappled with these issues as long as there have been laws or any attempt to codify a moral social system.
The fact that these principles appear in the Bible might be useful in posing important questions to the many believers that are sincerely grounded in a Biblical tradition, and to those who claim Biblical authority for imperial greed and environmental destruction. I like this approach and while I don't falsify my own relation to the Bible I do use my knowledge of the Bible to pose such questions since I know I have limited access to, or influence on, the belief systems of others.
Occupy and Beatitudes - Chris Hedges Occupy Wall Street Dec 3, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I3CtdyuzD8&feature=player_embedded#
When the left recovers such well-informed moral sensibilities as these, it will then become a true 99er movement and unopposable. I notice how the concepts are introduced WITHOUT any compulsion to embrace the rituals and trappings (and, literally, "trappings" as in "trapped") of the temple, church, or mosque. Well said.
Judeo-Christian? Would somebody explain that term? My understanding is that Jews completely reject Christ, although Christians embrace the Old Testament prophets. That being the case, why this hyphenated term "Judeo-Christian?"
oh quit trolling the religious topics. I quit doing it, you can too.
People like Rick give cover to fanatics. The world would be better offf with less beliefs and more understanding.
It seems to me that what he espouses is a fraud on the human race, his and bill's beliefs are a slave collar for the rest of humanity and their Jew/Christ religions are a blight ojn the human race.
Imagine where we would be without Judaism or Christianity! Just imagine.
People often use religions that promote selfless behavior, as well as non-religious ideologies that promote selfless behavior, including communism and socialism (as an agnostic socialist I wish it weren't so), to cloak self-interested behavior. You cannot come up with a religious belief or other ideology that cannot be used by some as cover for self-interested behavior.
This is hilarious. People that speak with anti-Christian secular religion fervor , those same people who are so offended when anyone suggests they should be denied their small minded bigoted way or thwarts their push to impose their religion on everyone else are talking about Christianity and "slaughters"
Did they miss the slaughters by the Romans, the Mongols, the Mayans and Incas, the Ottoman Turks, etc...and in modern days the slaughter of over two million Chinese, the two hundred thousand Viet Namese, the million or so in Cambodia the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the Muslim conducted genocide in Darfur, etc? No Christians among those and quite a few that practice the secular religion as a matter of fact.
If passages from the bible offends you, I recommend the Koran, it is even juicer. But if you are gay or a woman, weak or a member of another religion or have no religion at all, you won't like what they say about you at all.
I really tire of the childish diatribes that only include one group that the person holds a prejudice against, but bigotry and intolerance seem to be their stock in trade.
The greatest difference between so many of those other groups you mention that participated oin slaughters, is that they did not preach peace love and understanding and claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ out of one side of their mouth as they committed there slaughters and thefts in his name.
The Mongols never believed in a God that claimed one should love their neighbours, forgive debts and turn the other cheek.
Muslims do not see Jesus as "The Son of God" they see him as a prophet and Mohammed as the last of the prophets.
The Aztecs did not preach peace and love of their fellow man because thats what their Gods wished.
None of this justifies those peoples belief systems. It merely points out that where most people take issue with Christianity is its outright hypocrisy. When a person who does not believe in the institution of marriage and one who openly claims he does not believe in monogamous relationships "cheats" on his wife , we as people do no react the same way when we find a person who lectures others on morality, the sanctity of marriage and the like is caught doing the same thing.
This is the same problem so many have with the United States of America.You continue to defend the actions of the USA because other countries are worse. North Korea does not promote itself as a beacon of democracy and of human rights and of dignity. Nor does China or Russia.
It is the United States of America that does that, slaughters children in the third world in order to promote "liberty" and then lectures the rest of the world on their own actions.
Delete..Double post
GW,
Yes indeed. The United States of America and the religion of nationalism. Complete with its own bible,(constitution) messiahs, and prophets. (founding fathers) There are others; I here use the big one as an example.
There are many religions. Some of the most dangerous do not mention the god of the bible at all. Many, started out with noble intentions, but man being man corrupted them all. (Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Democracy, Nationalism and etc.etc. etc... This list goes on and on. All corrupted because of man's obsession with power.
Read these CommonDreams comment threads carefully, and you will discover that we are are all practicing a religion of one kind or another.
Take care
Thomas Gilbert-
Well said, though there is in fact tremendous hypocrisy in communism as in almost any group organized around a set of beliefs. To judge hypocrisy is inevitably to have your own set of beliefs or moral standards and probably, well, for most of us anyway, to compromise those moral claims. Many environmentalists have lousy carbon footprints; people cheat.
Right now, the very biosphere is threatened by greed violence, hypocrisy and the megalomania of the deranged aggressors that rise to power in the current system. Only if there is a complete internal breakdown of the current system or a decisive majority finds enough unity to stop this small but highly armed and very rich elite will there be a livable future. It comes down to peace as the organizing paradigm vs war. War is the violent struggle for status/dominance, and power/wealth, and peace is the non violent pursuit of harmony and understanding/wisdom. Both offer powerful incentives and rewards to the human spirit, but war creates enemies while peace creates friends. Imagine...
"the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia,"No Christians among those
WTF do you think was conducting that ethnic cleansing in Bosnia?
"Did they miss the slaughters by the Romans,"
So, when Rome became Christianised, the slaughters stopped?
"the two hundred thousand Viet Namese,"
The American soldiers who slaughtered Vietnamese were / are not Christian?
And it is your post that is hilarious. That people who were not Christians have committed massacres and slaughters, does not negate the slaughters committed by Christians.
"People that speak with anti-Christian secular religion fervor , those same people who are so offended when anyone suggests they should be denied their small minded bigoted way or thwarts their push to impose their religion on everyone else are talking about Christianity and "slaughters""
Yes, Christianity and slaughters, including the slaughter of other Christians by Christians.
I'm not surprised that you are deliberately trying to drag the thread off, into a debate about slaughters, since you do not like his point about Christianity and wealth.
It occurs to me that the Christian faith is in fact the Nazi Party of ancient Rome, canonized by Constantine to serve as the gatekeeper to imperial government. It is probably due to the significance of Judaism within Christianism that has kept the former a viable faith all these millenia, rather than allowing it to disappear like the other religious curiosities of the western ancient world. Jacobinism, socialism, communism, fascism, and Naziism were attempts to reproduce Constantine's remodeling of the political world through the interior of his subjects.
Mr. Salutin is clearly not asking readers to endorse the authority of the Bible or any religion, but pointing out that these ancient peoples and cultures, along with their tribal wars and cultural prejudices, also had a profound sense that limits must be placed on the accumulation of wealth and power and that limits must be placed on human treatment of the earth. For me this is important knowledge, the sense that humans have grappled with these issues as long as there have been laws or any attempt to codify a moral social system.
There really is no such thing as "the Christian faith". Those who claim it include pacifists, mass murderers, Martin King and George Bush, Dorothy Day and Ferdinand of Spain, those who claim an absolute literal authority for the Bible and those who refuse any creedal absolutes. Your critique has validity but simply goes too far in implicating all people who see Jesus as a spiritual model in the crimes of human history. I'm not trying to put you down for your legitimate concerns , but how do you account for those who have followed Jesus example of loving resistance to war and greed and lost their lives for speaking and acting against the crimes of christians, Ceasars, Mercenary land grabbers, slavers etc.? My point here is not that these acts of courage and resistance and pursuit of justice validate " the christian faith", but rather they show that there is no single Christian faith and that not all Christians are bound in a Nicean arrangement with the Empire. Neither are all socialists Stalinists, neither are all libertarians harmless etc..
I always encourage discernment between INSTITUTIONALIZED and normative Christianity - the two are very different in process and content. The latter being revolutionary by its very nature and timelessly recognizable. The Mahabarata of India is one version of the journey of relationships that humans experience with the creation that is very interesting but virtually never mentioned.
Shared are the epochs in terrestrial evolution where writing - and notably how the different cultures represented the recorded idea. Not all cultures chose to engage the written word. Today rather than being celebrated for the intricate universes the agraphic cultures represent, they are being slaughtered by the damned system. Notable in the choice not to place oration under the pen was the concept of the individual/family/extended family in relationship with the earth. These cultures hold the ongoing dance of life as a spiritual/social/eminently practical exercise and conversation.
If you look at - say the 10 commandments, they are very much road markers that bridge the transition between these two ways of being. They are teaching stories that, when written still depended on the oral transmission by elders to the youth and all the breadth of day to day shared experience that entails.
One of our challenges is to become profoundly humble in our thinking - not weak in domination that destroys the earth, but in for the long haul with the social/spiritual foundation to do that - to take the time that has been stolen from us to work our way out of the conceptual straightjacket of "modernity" one of the most destructive, narcissistic and unsustainable mythos ever to go off track and arrogate seminal processes of life. Life never has been and never will be 'linear'. It is cyclical. This taking back of time and community is one of the gifts of OCCUPY.
All that said, I think you're on the nose with Constantine.
~Take the law of the Sabbatical year: every seventh year, all debts are forgiven. (In addition the land must lie fallow — something under the tree, as it were, for environmentalists.)~
i figure the only way out of this colossal mess is to wipe the slate clean. however, the magical gods running the financial industry create debt in order to create "money" out of thin air. the entire human world's government debts loom ever bigger and bigger dwarfing the world's gross national product. actually, in truth, there is no magic only slight of hand trickery packaging unpayable interest on debt as profit like wrapping an empty box in tinfoil and pretty bows. and guess what, folks even the rumored "richest nation on earth" cannot begin to pay down the interest.
the "let land lie fallow" idea proves that agriculturalists very early on recognized the dangers of soil depletion. however, an ever expanding human population urges each generation to abandon the wisdom of the lesson for the sake of expediency. that plan for resource management should not be considered as a token gift to placate "environmentalists" but as our RESPONSIBILITY to the living environment. what arrogance! we late arrivals on the evolutionary tree of life think we own the place--it's our party and we can trash it if we want to!
Then there’s the Jubilee year: every 50 years — after seven cycles of seven — all land reverts to its original owners.
show us the "original" deed of title signed by gaia. when did the cosmos agree that our species is greater than the whole?
Yes, that is a problem with the Jubilee concept. But as it was explained in the Hebrew Bible supposedly there was an egalitarian distribution of the land among all the Hebrew families when they first conquered Canaan. Thus it was supposed to start off as equal and always be restored as equal.
But of course this raises an even worse problem, that the initial equal distribution among the Hebrews happened as a result of conquest and slaughter of the original people living there, genocide.
I don't think that terrible reality undoes the justice of the concept of the Jubilee. What it does it make it clear that the Hebrew Bible (and much of the NT) are a mix of some really great concepts right along side some horrific and disgusting things and the writers don't seem to see the inconsistency. I think a lot of the Bible could be summed up as "God is on the side of the poor and God will wipe out our enemies." ::shudder::
Two more things about the Hebrew Bible accounts. The Hebrew Bible itself never records either the Sabbatical or the Jubilee EVER being enacted. Secondly there is no historical evidence that the Hebrews conquered Canaan; it's more likely they were Canaanites who developed a different identity over centuries and then projected into the past their then current hostile antagonism to their neighbors as a genocidal fantasy wish fulfillment.
Finally, it was just this kind of thing like the Jubilee that led peasants in Latin America to turn to Liberation Theology when they started studying the Bible in their own languages in small groups. This Liberation Theology was a driving force in the revolutionary movements behind the Sandinistas and Oscar Romero in El Salvador. Since then the Vatican has slapped down such thinking.
"What it does it make it clear that the Hebrew Bible (and much of the NT) are a mix of some really great concepts right along side some horrific and disgusting things"
Most life is such a shocking mix. For example, no matter how noble a life form aspires to be, unless it practices photosynthesis or some such process for energy, it gets its own energy from devouring other life. Sometimes I speculate that this was really what the theologians were striving to say when they talked about "Original Sin" ...
RVingRetiree,
Very good comment.
Thomas Gilbert-
Heads up. The gods of unslakable greed are four: guanine, thymine, cytosine, and adenine.
Trylon
It would be wise for you to ask What creates culture. The foundational answer would be found in our genes. Behavior is fundamentally genetic prior to it being influenced by culture. Greed is thus a behavioral trait that must be controlled by culture, as culture was created to control human nature/behavior.
Cultrue is also created to DISTORT and MANIPULATE human behavior.
Under discussion here is male-supremacist religion -- one all male god insanity.
You don't think that was distortion and manipulation of culture/humanity?
Think of all it led to -- al lthe way to Papal Bulls on the Native American and
African enslaved here -- "enslave them or kill them!" was the demand!
Sexist societies are based on male-supremacist relgiions/theories.
How much difficulty has that caused as the "bird with one wing" destroys all
of nature with its exploitation and violence?
Homophobia is another cultural distortion put in place by male-supremacist
religion -- preaching of intolerance and hatred for homosexuals which has
inspired violence towards them.
Patriarchy is violence -- it is a mirror image of violence. And it is the only way
that patriarchy can rise or survive!
i dunno, trylon??????
i think its more a fear-based psychological disorder.
Cell reproduction in living things is not based upon psychology. It is based upon finding the proper protein parts, like Tinker Toys, to link into pairs. For a short time we, presumably, had a primordial sea in which these proteins existed freely. The finite supply got linked into molecular skeins which functioned like nets. THEN the skeins found the advantage of rolling into TUBES. Most animals on earth are Tube creatures. They have sensors and mouths on one end and pooper shitters on the other end. They devour anything whose AGCT can be made their own. Endlessly. Without limit. See Walt Disney =Fantasia=. See The fish that ate Pittsburgh.
Self replicating molecules don't go, "Ho hum, that's enough for me, some other creature can have these available proteins." I am using DNA as a metaphor not an explanation.
Learning about economic justice from the bible is like learning about mathematics from a phone book.
Given the high concentration of bull shit in the buybull, koran, et al, I thought they would be a nutritious amendment to my garden. Alas, they must have been to rich, as no organism came near them. I put some worms on them but they wiggled away in haste. I confess, they help control the buttercups.
Buttercups are actually pretty poisonous in their own right. Aconite's in the same family but the compounds responsible for the toxicity are quite different.
By the way, from experience I can say that the bible really doesn't even make good toilet paper.
It works well as an emergency rolling paper, however.
I've never tried that and am not likely to, so I'll have to take your word for it.
Morris Berman, in his most recent book (Why America Failed), implies that an ethical approach is not only "right," but pragmatic--for he argues that throughout our history hucksterism has been dominant (rather than a "brother's keeper" philosophy), and this is why our society is currently "on its way out."
Why all this lack of tolerance? People should be judged by their actions, not by their religious beliefs. Religion has inspired some to do great acts of kindness. To argue that all religion is bad all the time is not logical. If sometimes a belief system can inspire geat acts of courage and benefit humanity, we should rejoice in that.
Sometimes it is not religion, but the lack of religious tolerance that is the problem. Agnosticism and tolerance for all might be a good idea.
That approach starts to run into problems when people start claiming that being intolerant on spurious and self-serving grounds such as misogyny, homophobia, and privilege is part of their religion.
Referring to religion in the West: So often religion is discussed as if it were somehow independent of the society that houses it. But in fact religion is an integral part of a society; and insofar as religious fragmentation exists, this simply reflects the variety of people that exist in the society. A criticism of religion is more properly directed at the nature of the society within which it occurs, for in the West at least (for the past few centuries) religion has played a supportive role, not a dominant one. In playing such a role, religion often becomes somewhat of a contortionist, and becomes subject to criticism because of that fact; but those who criticize religion for this reason fail to perceive that religion does not stand apart from a society but, rather, is a part of it--and primarily in a reflective sense.
The Bible can be used to promote many things, but it's a failure at promoting anything ethical. I've argued the Old Testament's Laws were an attempt to govern human behavior by putting the greed bug back in its bottle, but it failed spectacularly. Its latest incarnation, The Koran, tried to do the same and it too failed. Just look at the coming holiday we are supposed to celebrate and how it's been coopted to support greed. Indeed, every holiday is now a Marketing and Sale opportunity regardless of one's country/religion/culture. Not too long ago, humanity almost universally marked this time of year by celebrating the death of the old year and birth of the new--Universally. That most important of Feasts is now just a sideshow--we watch the ball drop, get drunk, and are fed exercises in marketing known as College Football Bowl Games that are devoid of what little meaning they once had.
George Carlin distilled the 10 Commandments to 2, which I echo in my own words: NO Killing Humans; No Coveting of Anything Belonging to Someone Else.
One of the main problems with religions is their exclusion of Mother Earth in their fairy tale morality plays. They treat our lovely planet much the same way as Exon, Monsanto and others of their ilk do: A means to an end. If your spiritual connection is with other living things and visible forces of nature (earth, wind, fire, the sun ,for christ sake) you are a pagan. The above comment asks why the lack of tolerance. Good question. Try running as an atheist for any office anywhere.
"I am the lord thy god. Thou shalt not have strange gods before thee." Alas.
Earth worship was central to all religions prior to the advent of Sky Gods and the Abrahamic religions that grew from them. Fortunately, what are known as "Eastern Religions" were able to keep from being destroyed by the false doctrines of the Sky God's institutional bureaucrats.
A spiritual connection does not require worship. The concept of worship began with the high priests who found the idea a convenient tool. People are easier to control when they are on their knees.
"Worrship" is an interesting concept as it's very easy to venerate without a show of fealty, which you make implicit in worship. Your observation explains why the Gnostics were feared by all the Mystery Religions, including Judaism and nascent Christianity--Gnosticism requires NO leaders as the Godhead and one's connection with it resides within ALL, thus rendering everyone sacred and worthy of veneration. Very radical those Gnostics, the most clever of all atheisms.
I think you have a fantasy view of the Gnostic Christians. They were actually all about only the enlightened elite being spiritual and the common folk being rude, vulgar and ignorant who the enlightened didn't need to worry about. They did have leaders, just like the Catholic Christians did too.
What made the Catholic Church win the competition with the Gnostics was that they included the common folk who didn't have to achieve some enlightenment and they cared for their needs, their physical needs, as well as promising them spiritual salvation.
Both groups tended to have leaders and after the Catholics won the popularity contest in the 2nd Century their organization did develop into a top down hierarchy that by the 4th Century was ready to merge with Empire. But the Gnostics weren't the wonderful alternative that a lot of folk want to think they were. Plus the Gnostics would dismiss any concern for nature as a mistake, since they elevated the spirit and disdained the earthly.
The best source for all this is Elaine Pagel's book "The Gnostic Gospels."
Views are shaped by the sources we use to develop our views. I've never read the source you cite. Instead, I examined the Dead Sea Scrolls and the small society that wrote them. Then there's a massive volume of research written by two of the most prolific exegetes from the 19th century that contains numerous Gnostic works and description of their religious conceptions. Then there's the excellent synthesis of those works and much more by Archya S in her book "The Christ Conspiracy," which does a good job describing how and why Gnostics were purged and killed off by the rising Catholic institution. And of course we have modern day Gnosticism that puts forth the internal Godhead notion I cited above, which I find closest to the actual science of Life. Also, I should note, the people I'm refering to are Gnostics, not the "Gnostic Christians" you mention--One cannot be a Gnostic and be Christian simultaneoulsly as the whole conception of the latter conflicts with the former.
philiphoko...Good points. Try being an agnostic - they are attcked by the religious and also by the atheists.
I pine away for a moral society to replace the legalistic one that consumes everything in its path. Soon the wealthy to wake up to that fact that we have the power, not them.
Economics goes all the way back to Egypt piling up grain under Joseph's direction, then buying its neighbors into slavery during seven years of famine.
Roman economics was a matter of conquer, govern, extract wealth as people starve ("Only a double handful of grain for a long day's work, and spare not the growing of olive oil or grapevines for export revenues" - Book of Revelations), and eventually let the starving people die of epidemics. Jesus preached that the Romans (and a few wealthy Jewish collaborators - lawyers, high priests, tax collectors) were sinning against Israel.
In the late 1600s the early Society of Friends (Quakers) was being starved by British judges who were taking their farms away for their constantly insulting the 1% and for their refusal to fight the King's wars. During this time they developed an internal economics of promising to pay each others debts, of always being scrupulous with customers, of setting their members up in businesses, of long-range research and development for the good of the businesses, of traveling to far-off lands and setting up trading stations so that Quaker mariners would be sure of a fair deal when trading between these stations. As a result of these internal rules they took over many major industries and most of the English and American banks. They started the English and American Industrial Revolutions. Their principles were the glue that made enterprise hum. Actually, the word "enterprise" refers to a strictly Quaker practice of always entering one honest price at market and never haggling.
Religion can be a practice, but it can also be a false cloak. Jesus railed against those who turned the temple "into a den of thieves". 400 years after Jesus, the Church united with the Roman Emperor and so it winked at the colonial wars. 100 years after the Quaker-driven renaissance, the wealthy children and grandchildren of the Quaker merchants often deserted their forebears' faith, loving their rich neighbors and the king's wars instead. Dickens pilloried false Quakers in his depiction of Ebenezer Scrooge. Marx had his own choice words about rich Quakers.
Religion as a whole isn't the enemy. The fake parts are separating you from your friends.
It's more about whether individuals and groups give a fig about what they mouth off all their lives. People are out worshiping God's gift to the poor of the world by feeding their own kids lots of slave-picked chocolate. Christ Mass is Christian in name, but the whole bankster-run Holy Day is contradiction city.
Paulk: Thank you for that post. Vaclav Havel quickly discovered (after becoming President of the Czech Republic) there were as many political parties as there were people. Desiring the loaf of bread and distributing it to the populace when the dream was realized were two contrasting forces altogether. Our demands upon religion and institutions work much in a similar way. The enlightenment period thought that by doing away with religion it would cure all of the world's ills. Voltaire could not find that happy state neither the proponents of modernity as well. We have become masters at creating fifty products for fifty classes and the two shall not meet...capitalism's Credo. The fig leaf you mention, is something that we should all be chewing a little more versus creating new scapegoats. I think the issue you touch upon is one of internal laundry and I wholeheartedly agree.
The decline of the middle class and the dramatic rise in poverty in the United States can be traced to the success of the racist southern strategy of the republican party much of it fueled by the growth in popularity of right wing religion. In the 1950's belief in religion was just under 50 percent in America while today it is nearly 80 percent much of it complete nonsense that promotes selfishness, greed and hatred against the poor, minorities, unions and women. Working class whites have been voting for the defenders of the one percent inspired mostly by resentment against perceived gains by blacks a heritage of a racist history that never seems to end.
The old testament is a manual to maintain empire. The Jewish authors plagiarized the ten commandments from the Egyptians and the great flood story from The Epic of Gilgamesh. Much of the rest belonged to the pagans. The ancient Jewish authors wrote that they were god's chosen people and the Zionists today know they are. The Warsaw Ghetto has been renamed Gaza. The Zionists aren't about to return any land to anybody and they are desperately dragging America into war with Iran. At some point in time I can only hope humanity will realize teaching children good and bad entities outside their bodies have influence or control of their actions is child abuse. The bible is trash, there are no answers there, only questions. Ancient Jewish history is the wrong roadmap for a modern world.
Life is brief and all will be judged
-- or in words of St. Andrew of Crete
(Great Lenten Canon 7th c)
The end draws near my soul, the end draws near,
Yet thou dost not care nor make ready.
The time grows short.
Rise up! The Judge is at the door!
The days of our life pass swiftly--
As a dream-- as a flower.
"I know that’s terse and I recommend the book over my summary. But since Sedlacek puts such stress on human sympathy and solidarity — which is another way to say, Peace on Earth, good will toward men — let me mention one more directive from the Hebrew Bible. It’s in the Ten Commandments and may be the only biblical law to forbid an emotion: Thou shalt not covet. What a pointless injunction. We have no control over our emotions; they come to us unbidden. Yet nothing is as destructive to human sympathy and community as envy or jealousy. It’s as if the Bible felt it was necessary to forbid them, even as it knew that was a hopeless order. It chose to at least draw attention to the danger."
An interesting and timely article, Rick, but the above paragraph misses the point about temptation and sin. We are limited in our choices to avoid temptation, but it is our spiritual duty to 'avoid the occasions of sin', circumstances which prompt us to sin, and to reject whatever temptations do occur to us; not once, but as often as they occur. Nevertheless, 'there is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins,' in the words of Ecclesiastes. But to be tempted is not, in itself, to sin; indeed, rejecting temptations, sometimes evil thoughts that have no attraction is the means by which we grow in the spirit, while to continually succumb to sin leads us in the other directon, an insensitive and eventually deadened conscience.
As regards debt, I believe you place too narrow an interpretation on it by identifying it as a sin on the part of the borrower. One can perhaps place such a restrictive interpetation on the word, 'debt', on the basis of Paul's stricture: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." Yet even the second reference to debt there, namely, to love one another, indicates that the reference to debts in the Lord's Prayer would have a much broader import than a financial debt, namely, obligations, duties.
As regards physical debts, Christ, seemed to be more 'working class' than any of his Apostles, and was evidently well aware of the need of poorer folk to borrow from each other and to lend to each other from time to time. Indeed, there is the parable of the man who banged on the door of his friend in the middle of the night, to ask him to lend him three loaves bread, as he had a guest who had turned up.
You, Mr. Saultin, have no control over your emotions? Do they really just "come unbidden"? A commitment to ethical living brings with it the whole person, including emotions.
It may be impossible not to covet once you have allowed free rein to your instincts for aggression and sex and territoriality. Old habits die hard but they can die. If you cannot control the content of your emotions or any other aspect of your consciousness then you are addicted to that pattern of living.
Emotions are the children of the paradigms by which we live.