PeaceBang

107 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I am disappointed that no one among the 123 commenters has answered my queries about whether liberationist theological commitments draw faithful Christians in that direction.

   Sorry, PB, I am not qualified to answer, since I’ve never seen myself as a Christian. The closest I get is “fan of Jesus,” but I’m at least as much “fan of Gautama” and my first spiritual struck oil! is from Paganism.

   That said… I certainly think that’s what I see and read in the Gospels. The parable of the talents makes it clear that the master is a parasite–harvesting where he did not sow, and if that’s not unsubtle enough, he tells the servant he’s unhappy with that he should have invested with the bankers and… um. I don’t think Jesus was really holding up the idea of making money through usury as a highly moral act, somehow.

   But I still want to know: does the God/Holy of your various traditions call you/us to regard wealth with hostile suspicion, and the rich with hatred or something close to it?

   Um. Yeah, I guess so. Profound suspicion, at least. Wealth (we’re talking wealth here, not merely well off) is absolutely power, and great wealth wields great — unearned — power. The first wellspring of the Holy (for me) asserts a pretty fundamentally egalitarian ethic. I don’t take that to mean flat even, institutionally imposed and closely monitored… but if the first and seventh principles mean anything, they mean that we’re all connected, and we’re all of equal worth (in that Declaration of Independence sense of “created equal”).

   No one born into this world is entitled to possess so much of it that others suffer for it. I guess that would be a starting point for me (and CC, that doesn’t mean that I don’t accept and acknowledge that there are — absolutely — people who have created some significant part of their own suffering. Even so, I think it’s incumbent on us to seek to diminish suffering, whether “earned” and “deserved” or not).

   Comment by ogre — June 12, 2008 #

2. I don’t actually have an objection to a social safety net, and I do want to relieve suffering.

   But I, politically and theologically, don’t know what to do with the idea that:

   Anne wants to be an artist and sacrifices and scrimps to make art. She’s a starving, but well-respected artist.
   Brian wants to be a professor and keeps himself a poor student for years on end. His students love and respect him even if he has to live on campus because of a state education salary freeze.
   Carrie wants to be a mom and has five children, who bring untold fulfillment and joy to her life.
   and
   Dave wants to be a stockbroker and works night and day to make that happen. He makes some wise trades and is very successful.

   Everybody got where the are because of the choice they made. But taking care of the poor is Dave’s, and only Dave’s, job, because he’s the “rich” one.

   The worldwide median income is about $5,000. We’re all rich by that standard.

   For me, it comes down to a question that others have struggled with far more heroically than I do: How much comfort is OK for us to allow ourselves in a world where people are suffering?
   Should Anne quit painting and start designing advertisments and send the extra money she makes to charity? Should Brian give up his research and teach in an inner city school? Is Carrie expected to donate her kids’ college funds to feed the hungry?

   How do I justify throwing parties in a world where people are starving?

   I don’t have an answer. But at least I’m willing to apply they question to myself, rather than deciding that struggling with it is the province solely of “The rich.”

   CC

   Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

3. ‘does the God/Holy of your various traditions call you/us to regard wealth with hostile suspicion, and the rich with hatred or something close to it? ”

   No.

   I’m still trying to figure out my “tradition” as a relatively new UU who was raised without formal religion. I can’t quote scripture or speak with any authority on any theological principal. I’m still learning the language. What I do know is that for peace and justice to prevail we all must love one another regardless of our circumstance. Wealth is just that… a circumstance. Some handle it better than others.

   Don’t get me wrong I have had more than a few horribly judgemental thoughts about wealthy people, but lately I feel pain for them. I would not want the burdens. Of course, I also don’t want the burdens of poverty either. I don’t wish either for my children. I still come back to wondering why I shouldn’t love and care for the billionaire the same as I would the pauper. We all have the spark of life within us and must recognize it in others and that has nothing to do with wealth.

   This is where I’m at at 2am. Lots to explore. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

   Comment by Emjay — June 12, 2008 #

4. CC, oh, I get it. I do.

   But part of what you’re talking about is that society has valued Dave’s job financially. The teacher who’s teaching Dave’s kid (and the rest of them) is performing tasks that are hard, demanding, devour many more hours than are “in class” and require plenty of training and hard work and… isn’t.

   For me, the answer starts with saying that there is a minimal standard that we permit people to fall to. Safety net. Air, water, food, shelter and health care. Decent food, and adequate shelter. That’s for the Daves too–a net so that when the company he works for bottoms out hard, goes out of business and leaves him unemployed in a down market… there’s only so far that he can fall.

   It’s not that it’s just the rich. It’s that the rich are in the “much will be demanded” category. That says nothing about from those who have some, nothing will be demanded.

   It’s simply, flatly, morally wrong for someone to be spraying huge quantities of potable water onto lawn if those who live in proximity don’t have adequate access to the potable water that they need for drinking and hygiene. Would it be wrong to deprive the wealthy of all the water they want in order to provide that for the deprived?

   I can’t find a “no” that seems acceptable.

   I think it’s those kinds of equations that we’ll be wrestling with. And–people are involved, so there will inevitably be cases that will annoy and offend sensibilities. We need to remember that bad cases lead to bad law. No system will be perfect. Ever.

   I’m with will in that the socio-political system we have is flawed, and some of the same moral questions that are easily held up now–from afar–to feudalism can and should be held up to capitalism (and particularly to the communism for corporations capitalism…). I also don’t think that the answers are yet clear. But then, they won’t be until after we’ve implemented them and they actually work.

   Comment by ogre — June 12, 2008 #

5. Since we’re talking Jesus, these are the sayings that I think aren’t terribly ambiguous:

   Woe unto you rich! You’ve had your consolation.
   -Luke 6:24

   Forgive our debts, just as we’ve forgiven our debtors.
   —Matthew 6.12

   Don’t store treasure on earth, where moth and rust eat, and where thieves break in and steal. Store treasures in heaven, where moth and rust don’t eat, and where thieves don’t break in and steal. Where your treasure is, your heart will be.

   The eye is the body’s lamp. If your eyes are good, your body will be full of light. If your eyes are bad, your body will be full of the dark. If the light in you is dark, how strong is that dark!

   No one can work for two bosses. Either they’ll hate one and love the other, or they’ll adore one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and greed.
   —Matthew 6.19-24

   If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.
   —Matthew 19:21

   Any of you who do not say goodbye to all you have cannot be my disciple.
   —Luke 14:33

   It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
   -Mark 10:25

   Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

6. As for Jesus’s advice about judging, I doubt he meant it in an absolute way. He was very willing to judge the rich and powerful. There’s a whole lot of judgment in the charge of hypocrite, and Jesus was never reluctant to lay that one on folks who deserved it. Maybe that statement should be interpreted as a warning that you’ll be judged when you judge, so you’d better get your house in order first. That’s implied by his advice to get the beam out of your eye before you worry about the splinter in someone else’s.

   CC, measuring wealth in money works within nations, but not around the world: purchasing power varies enormously from country to country. With the same amount of money, you can have servants in one land and be a servant in another.

   Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

7. PB, since you asked for an explicit answer, no, I don’t think we should hate rich individuals who only do the things that our social system condones, but I do think we should hate that social system. It’s the egalitarian’s version of “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

   Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

8. Yeah, “Judge not…” makes a point that you’ll be judged by the standard you hold up. Which is why Foley, Vitter, and Ol’ Wide-Stance have no moral cover. Just as a for example. Now, if will inherits or wins megabucks and changes his tune, why, he’s established a pretty open season.

   And yes, $1 goes vastly, vastly farther (in most ways) in say, Zimbabwe, than it does in some urban US environment. Which only makes it harder to figure out what equitable means.

   Comment by ogre — June 12, 2008 #

9. Wow, so we can spin it so that even the warning not to judge doesn’t apply to us as long as we’re judging the people Jesus wants us to judge. How terribly convenient that Jesus would dislike the same people we do. I wonder if other folks who like Jesus, but dislike DIFFERENT groups of people have the same experience of Jesus always seeming to be on their side?

   And the bible quotations are lovely. But I’m fairly certain that when Jesus’ disciples “abandoned all,” they left wives and children, too. Not an example I’m inclined to follow, and I don’t know that Jesus meant me to.

   Cost of living varies wildly in America, too, of course. But fine, I’m willing to measure it other ways. Only about 50 percent of people worldwide have tap water in their homes.

   If you have it, you must be rich.

   Global life expectany is about 65, little less for guys little more for women. If you seriously think you will live longer, you’re probably rich.

   There are lots of factors one could use to determine whether you’re rich or not, those are just two of the most straightforward. If you like vaccination rates, or years of school, infant mortality rates in your hometown or what have you, go figure it out.

   But I think you’re going to get the same answer every time.

   Again, I don’t have a magic formula for how much you have to give to Unicef to offset the consumption level of going out with your friends. If I did have that formula, I would give it to you. I might even try to follow it myself, though I’d probably suck at it.

   Even your pal Jesus was OK with the occaisional footrub, but I’ve always been one to overdo things.

   So, don’t worry, when you get home from your next vacation, you won’t find a bill from me telling you how many malaria nets you owe Africa. But at the same time, I do know that adding more bitchng and blaming to the world probably won’t solve anything, no matter how nicely cloaked in theology said bitching and blaming might be.

   CC

   Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

10. “(my LORD, all we need is another group of self-identified marginalized people in the UUA!)”

    Who might those groups be? I’m curious to know whether I may be one of them. [Depends on what week it is. The Christians, the Humanists, the polyamorists, or put-upon-heterosexuals, women, or youth, or Republicans, or differently abled (including those with perfume sensitivities), etc. Some years I have wondered if we’re not just a big collection of small groups vying for the honor of Most Oppressed. - PB]

    Comment by mary — June 12, 2008 #

11. Generally, I feel sorry for the rich. They are in a prison, in their own environment, responding to its rules, guiding them. They can’t ‘touch’ something because the funds are in the way.

    Nice to have the freedom, if you are not a workaholic, or forced to be one, or not caught up in power games.

    But they will never know the opposite, so they will never really know who they are. They are on autopilot, having never truly sacrificed, faced the fear, and found out about the other side.

    Yuck. Who wants to be so regimented. And we think they are free with all their money. The more you have, the more you have to manage, the more your money owns you.

    But then, this goes for everyone in the Western world, because we’re so rich. The top ten percent of the global society. In the old days, that was called the aristocracy. Those millionaires coveted and envied the billionaires in their time too.

    Comment by Sun Warrior — June 12, 2008 #

12. I commented on my blog about the impact of Rev. Wright’s sermons and observed that the presidential candidates are all very lucky that Jesus isn’t alive today.

    If he was alive and preaching about justice, it would be all over YouTube and McCain, Obama, and Clinton would all have to disown him.

    Most folks have heard the beatitude “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” in Luke 6:20 so long that they don’t see the harsh politically-tinged social justice message in this Bible verse.

    John Dominic Crossan (the former Catholic priest and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar) writes about this in his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.

    Crossan’s exegesis of this verse takes us to a very uncomfortable place. The following quote is from Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, page 62:

    “Now what on earth does that mean, especially if one does not spiritualize it away, as Matthew immediately did, into ‘poor in spirit’ — that is, spiritually humble or religiously obediant? Did Jesus really think that bums and beggers were actually blessed by God, as if all destitute were nice people and all the aristocrats were correspondingly evil?”
    …

    “If, however, we think not just of personal or individual evil but of social, structural, or systemic injustice — that is, of precisely the imperial situation in which Jesus and his fellow peasants found themselves — then the saying becomes literally, terribly, and permanently true. In any situation of oppression, especially in those oblique, indirect, and systemic ones where injustice wears a mask of normalcy or even of necessity, the only ones who are innocent or blessed are those squeezed out deliberately as human junk from the system’s own evil operation. A contemporary equivalent: only the homeless are innocent. That is a terrifying aphorism against society because, like the aphorisms against the family, it focuses on not just on personal or individual abuse of power but on such abuse in its systemic or structural possibilities — and there, in contrast to the former level, none of our hands are innocent or our consciences are particularly clear.”

    Comment by Steve Caldwell — June 12, 2008 #

13. Maybe that statement should be interpreted as a warning that you’ll be judged when you judge, so you’d better get your house in order first. That’s implied by his advice to get the beam out of your eye before you worry about the splinter in someone else’s.

    I’m sorry, Will, but you’re painting yourself into a corner from which you can no longer speak with any credibility, at least to my ears. You’ve told us that you’re capable of earning much more than you do, and giving what you don’t need of those earnings to relieve suffering elsewhere, but you’re more satisfied choosing not to. In contrast, you’ve heaped opprobrium on Andrew Carnegie, who accomplished beyond all ordinary imagination what you refuse even to attempt — amassing a fortune worth $4.3 billion in today’s dollars, and giving it all away during the span of his own lifetime — a well as on well-meaning people of lesser means whose only vice is wanting to provide for their families and avoid becoming dependent on others.

    A lot of Jesus’ ministry was an attempt to refocus our attention away from resenting the faults of others and toward trying to correct our own faults instead: Don’t judge if you can’t withstand the same judgment. Don’t try to cure the splinters in others’ eyes before removing the beam from your own. Don’t cast stones at anyone else if your own hands are not clean. It was good advice, then and now.

    AS I said in an earlier post, I’m not criticizing your own moral choices in how you live your own life. At this point I am, however, denying your moral authority to render judgment on anyone else.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

14. I recently (April 2008) joined a Unitarian Universalist Church in northern Maine and I have been so stirred by my minister’s sermons and by the books he has given me to read that I am considering pursuing the path of ministry myself. As part of the process of my discernment I have turned to the blogosphere to find out what kinds of discussions are circulating within our virtual congregation. PeaceBang appears to be ranked by the UU community as one of the very best, and this discussion thread has broken PeaceBang’s all time commenting record, so it seems reasonable to conclude that I am looking at a fairly representative sample of both the caliber of the argument and the range of opinion in our virtual community.

    My observation of the discussion so far leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I find most of the comments to be intellectually sophisticated and I consider it a strength that both sides of the question are represented. On the other hand, I am dismayed that the inquiry is so scattershot.

    One of the qualities of a religion based on reason, as I see it, is an evident commitment to civil religious controversy.

    Civil religious controversy is to religious argument what the Olympics are to physical battle between people. Rules, witnesses, and civility between opponents are essential. Without these foundations, I hypothesize that it is generally uneconomical and counterproductive to engage in the kind of serious religious argument.

    That said, I propose as an experiment, that my own participation in this conversation, if any of you are interested in seeing it continue, proceed along the following lines, for our mutual amusement and possibly edification:

    1) I play the role of a younger student - let’s say a prospective seminarian - wishing to be educated in the morality of the UU tradition. Claiming ignorance, I play the role of the interlocutor. That means I ask the questions that drive the inquiry, and I do so with a single intent: to test and improve my understanding by forcing my opponent to contradict his or her stated thesis - and conceding the argument when I cannot.

    2) A volunteer plays the role of an older and wiser religious teacher - let’s say a professor in a seminary - wishing to faithfully pass on the moral wisdom of the UU tradition. The volunteer’s job is to test and improve my understanding with a single intent: to avoid contradiction of the thesis by responding rationally and strategically to my questions - and role modeling secure intellectual humility if contradiction proves unavoidable.

    Anyone observing the play can jump in with a referee’s comment if they think a dictate of reason has been violated.

    Both parties can ask the rest of the commenters for consultation as an “aside” from the main thread of the argument, and observers can interject their asides directly into the play.

    I’ve never done before, but I’ve studied enough ancient philosophy to know that this format was the bread and butter of spiritual practice for almost a thousand years in the Academy started by Plato. The key to making it work, I think, is for all parties to view it as a spiritual practice - not as mere competition - in which intellectual humility and even gentleness is just as important as rigor of argument.

    The thesis I would propose for a volunteer is this:

    “A UU religious educator teaches a seminarian to respect, not chasten, the wealthy members of a UU congregation.”

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

15. Sorry about the typos: I really hate to interrupt the flow. When you hit the breaks, my text should read 1) “in THIS kind of serious religious argument” and 2) “I’ve never done THIS before.”

    Thanks.

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

16. [Depends on what week it is. The Christians, the Humanists, the polyamorists, or put-upon-heterosexuals, women, or youth, or Republicans, or differently abled (including those with perfume sensitivities), etc. Some years I have wondered if we’re not just a big collection of small groups vying for the honor of Most Oppressed. - PB]

    I call it “the soteriology of victimization”.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

17. Fausto, I was really hoping you would volunteer. Are you disinclined to support the thesis, to play the game, or both?

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

18. Okay, PB, back to your questions.

    In my view, you are hitting the nail right on the head. Our knowledge of God’s will is measured by the depth of our understanding of the interdependence of all things. Direct experimentation with interdependence, as Thich Nhat Hanh would call it from a Buddhist perspective, leads inexorably to an understanding of the practical art of the middle way at any given point in the unfolding of history.

    In our time, the deepest grasp of middle way interdependence available to a human mind is a genius-level recognition of the religious, economic, political, and environmental threads that join each one of us in a single planetary system. This global consciousness (what Bucke, in his day, called cosmic consciousness, or what Krishnamurti might call the awakening of intelligence) compels us to examine the impact of our everyday decisions from the perspective of an emergent global leader and to embody the middle way practically as a world citizen.

    World citizens are aware that the U.S. economy is destabilizing the life support systems of our planet. The problem is that a radical change in the U.S. economy appears politically impossible absent the force of an externally imposed natural or nuclear catastrophe. Since no one in his or her right mind would desire that kind of devastation, we must instead aim at a gradual but very serious and strategic reduction in the U.S. consumption of natural resources. At the same time, we must temper this reduction of consumption with changes in the distribution and pattern of consumption both in the U.S. and globally, such that the wealthy are giving up the things that don’t really contribute to their wellbeing, and the poor are gaining not only the “things” that they lack, but also the culture and education they will need to be productive members in a new green economy. All of this must be done with as little animosity between classes, races, and other divisions as possible.

    So how do we make this happen? Well, for starters, I think we need to role model excellence in education for world citizenship within our UU community.

    You’re making a big contribution to that work here, PeaceBang. My guess is that the majority of commenters are drawn to UU and to this forum with an equally deep commitment to participate in that work, even if they have never thought of it in quite this way.

    The question, in my mind, as I look dispassionately at PeaceBang and best in class blogs elsewhere on the blogosphere, is how to guide and moderate the necessary controversy over details so that the discussion actually contributes to our mutual growth as world citizens. If we can’t get it right within the sacred space of the UU community, how can we expect the folks in Washington to get it right?

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

19. ‘Rich’ or ‘wealth’ or ‘just comfortable’….all similar issues.
    It is not a crime to be a person of means. How one uses the gifts, talents and financial resources one has is important.
    Generosity is a response to God’s gifts to us.
    Sharing what we have to “Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly” is how we live what we claim to believe.
    Sure, we’d all appreciate having more to share….BUT remember the widow’s mite….sharing out of a generous spirit is more important than the amount.
    The wealthy have perhaps, a greater visibility as they model generosity - but the promise made by one of my members (who has less than $600 a month for all expenses) to give something weekly - is a HUGE pledge.
    Now, if a wealthy person could be that generous, enjoy doing for others as much as that retiree, then we’re talking REAL wealth.
    If it’s helpful to know, our congregation is UCC.

    Comment by Rev. Steelman — June 12, 2008 #

20. Fausto, I was really hoping you would volunteer. Are you disinclined to support the thesis, to play the game, or both?

    Sorry, I really have to be more of an industrious ant than a chirping grasshopper today if my family is going to keep its health insurance.

    I haven’t even been to seminary, much less taught at one, so I’m afraid I wouldn’t be a very good Plato to your Aristotle in any event.

    I do think we have an historical Unitarian calling to cultivate improvements in our own character and encourage the character development of our fellows, and an historical Universalist calling to honor and exemplify God’s healing love toward all members of humanity. That means not showing prejudice toward undifferentiated groups of people, or condemning any individual’s faults too harshly, but beyond that, I’d be in the role of pupil myself rather than pedagogue.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

21. Sorry, PB, but one final point: those who would be guardians must possess a remarkable spiritedness - a ferocious animosity, if you will - toward any who would unjustly undermine the wellbeing of the republic. Plato called this “thymos”; the Chinese call it “chi”; the yogins “prana.” Fukuyama discusses it in chapter 17 of his “The End of History and the Last Man.” It’s the warrior spirit that we see in Hollywood celebrations of the heroic male. It’s a masculine energy, one that is destructive if it is not married properly to its feminine opposite in the androgynous figure of the mature spiritual teacher, but it is nonetheless indispensable.

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

22. Long before I was a UU, I was a Wobbly—a member of the infamous radical labor union the Industrial Workers of the World. Wobblies, who got their noses bloodied and did some blooding in return during the most intense period of open class warfare in American history, lived by the words of the Preamble to their Constitution, which any card carrying member could recite with greater conviction than Catholics can recite the Creed. To quote the opening words:

    “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

    Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth…”

    That polar thinking was useful to workers who wanted not just another nickle in the pay envelope, but a fundamental re-odering of the basic arrangement of things. Despite a seething animosity toward organizaed religion and the “Pie in the Sky” preachers who always seemed defend the oppresors, a lot of Wobblies, including some of the old timers I was privilaged to know, considered the Preamble just an extention of the work of “Fellow Worker Jesus” and his admonition that “the last shall be first and the first last.”

    Part of me still walks down that path. But a life time of personal experience has taught me that individuals do not fit neatly into catagories of good and evil. We are all both trapped in circumstances beyond our making—libertarian fantacies to the contrary not withstanding—and trying with varing degrees of success to overcome the constraints of those circumstances. Niether possession of great wealth or want of it is any reliable predictor of character.

    The church is where we do—or should—come together in mutual support of our spiritual needs and for critical companionship in our individual quests. In the words of a Christmas poem I once wrote, the congregation should be that Stable where “…herdsmen and highlords/ kneel together/under our thatched roof/to lay their gifts/before Wonder.”
    But that doesn’t mean that I will not still work to find ways of adjusting the fundamental inequities of the class system, of which—like it or not—we are a part.

    –Patrick, who has ranted in the past about UU disdain for the dirt-under-the-finger-nail working class, but does not hate any particular rich person because they are rich.

    Comment by Patrick Murfin — June 12, 2008 #

23. PB

    First: Thanks for your mention.

    If I have your question right, then I would say that there might be a basic assumption that has to be considered that would be true in Jesus’ time and now.

    Chris Rock in a stand up once cited the statement “With great wealth comes a great crime”, he was basically saying that in order for humans to amass great wealth, that person at some point had to act ruthlessly and unethically.

    While I can’t cite a study, I would have no problem agreeing with the concept that in order to be rich (outside of winning the lottery or via inheriting) you have to be driven.

    A person has to focus on some task or goal and to some extent ignore and dismiss other more positive “life affirming” goals. That might mean their art until the work sells, writing constantly and ignoring their children, or practicing some sport to the point they are the best.

    Generally this theory would argue that in order to do that one thing that amasses wealth, you in one way or another transgress either morally, ethically, or philosophically against others. You must be ruthless. The assumption may also be that part of that ruthlessness became immoral in oder to generate great wealth.

    If we remember the times from which we are discussing this, amassing great wealth was not as “easy” as it is today. At least in terms of morality. Gathering and holding onto wealth in ancient times tended to mean at least openly deny human charity to others. And it was expected.

    If that is the case, ruthlessness, then the sin is the ruthlessness the person pursued. The evil then might be whether the person ignored their ruthlessness. The hate then would come from observing the person celebrating their ruhtlessness, knowing that they are celebrating their inhumanity as well.

    Personally I think the practice of redemtion comes into play here. If the ruthless wealthy have an opportunity for redemption, and they ignore it or condemn it, then yes, I could at least feel pity and contempt for them. That would also be where a hate could begin.

    In conclusion, my religious interpretation does not call me to hate or view the wealthy with suspicion, or hate by virtue of just their account. It is how they use the money and whether they understand their role in the interconnectedness of life (or are redeemed and see it), that controls my response.

    Hope that helps.

    Comment by ChuckPhilly — June 12, 2008 #

24. Thanks, Fausto, for taking the time to reply. I must say I am sorry that you have not yet been able to organize your home economy such that you have sufficient time to engage in philosophy. I must say I am somewhat puzzled by this, as I was under the impression that you were an active commenter on this blog, and so 1) had the time to participate, and 2) held in somewhat higher esteem that time which you, and others, are investing in the enterprise.

    But don’t worry, I won’t take personally the implication of your comment that I MYSELF am an irresponsible grasshopper, as that would be inconsistent with “an historical Universalist calling to honor and exemplify God’s healing love toward all members of humanity” and so could not possibly have been your intention.

    Anyway, I’ll let you get back to work now. Sorry to have been a distraction.

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

25. Sorry I can’t volunteer, Jonathon. It does sound like an interesting project. But I’m merely a first year UU seminarian myself–and am scrambling to make up an incomplete while preparing for the courses I’m taking over the summer.

    —-

    fausto, does the act of Carnegie (and presumably, from what I’ve heard, Gates) in giving away all the accumulated vast wealth of a lifetime compensate for the evils, large and small, that rested on so many employees (and others) in the accumulation process? I’m asking that seriously. What Carnegie did, and what Gates is doing, is demonstrably laudable; it serves good and noble and worthy ends. Humanity is better for that charitable work. The question might be easier to start gnawing on if viewed in the extreme. A fortune from slaving or drug running, being given away to good causes… is the wealth not still morally tainted? Does the act of giving it away obviate the question of any harm or injury or injustice (or illegality) committed in the getting of it?

    Should we not remember and hold up to scrutiny what harm we and others do, individually and collectively, in the process of being wealthy or getting wealthy?

    … ah, I’ll come back to the rest later. I’ve got to scramble to go and help a building committee spend responsibly what is, at some remove, a fractional part of the profits from a Spanish land grant.

    Comment by ogre — June 12, 2008 #

26. Fausto—

    You wrote:

    “In contrast, you’ve heaped opprobrium on Andrew Carnegie, who accomplished beyond all ordinary imagination what you refuse even to attempt — amassing a fortune worth $4.3 billion in today’s dollars, and giving it all away during the span of his own lifetime — a well as on well-meaning people of lesser means whose only vice is wanting to provide for their families and avoid becoming dependent on others.”

    The trouble with Andrew Carnegie is not the good he did by giving away his wealth. I was a direct beneficiary of his largess in that much of my introduction to the world of books and learning took place in the Carnegie Public Library in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He laid out his perfectly Presbyterian justification for not “burdening” his children with unearned and undeserved wealth and for giving his wealth away in this GOSPEL OF WEALTH.

    No, Carnegie’s problem is how he amassed that wealth to give away. In his business dealings he was as ruthless as any 19th Century Robber Barron with a more tarnished reputation—Jay Gould, for example. He ruthlessly crushed competitors in his drive to establish a Steel Trust. He squeezed his suppliers for the lowest prices, even when he was perfectly aware that those prices would be fatal to them. And through the Steel Trust he fixed prices at an artificially high level which of course was paid for by the ultimate consumers—the public. He let his partner, Henry Clay Frick, handle the actually military assaults on the Iron Molder’s Union that eventually crushed unionism in the industry, but he did nothing to stop it. He routinely slashed wages and increased working hours at every opportunity, keeping his workers and their families in crushing poverty.

    Now all of that did not make Carnagie a personal devil anymore than his largess made him an angel. We are all complex beings. His moral complexity was lived out on a vaster historical stage than most.

    But of course the quintessential American argument is that any sort of piracy, theft or oppression is justified if, at the end, “something good comes out of it.”

    Comment by Patrick Murfin — June 12, 2008 #

27. Thanks, Fausto, for taking the time to reply. I must say I am sorry that you have not yet been able to organize your home economy such that you have sufficient time to engage in philosophy. I must say I am somewhat puzzled by this, as I was under the impression that you were an active commenter on this blog, and so 1) had the time to participate, and 2) held in somewhat higher esteem that time which you, and others, are investing in the enterprise.

    When I post from work, I do have to keep an eye on the clock. Yesterday was just a light day. Sometimes weeks go by without my participation.

    When I get rich enough to quit my day job and devote full time to philosophy, I’ll be sure to set up a charitable foundation to take care of the needy first, and then once I’m on firmer ground with my own morality maybe I’ll be able to keep my poor neglected blog a little more current as well, as well as participate more consistently elsewhere.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

28. As a wealthy person, I feel I must post anonymously here or be subjected to great hostility in the future. (I do post semi-regularly under another user name.)

    My partner and I have always been very private about our finances. We feel that how much we have, how much we give away, how we support our values with our money is strictly our business. Ultimately, it is between us and our sense of the Divine to do what we believe is right.

    This thread reinforces my belief that this is absolutely the only way to go. I can see that every decision we make about our money would be judged and scrutinized. Doesn’t particularly incline me to feel welcomed in the community.

    I am struggling to concentrate on those posters who preach “love the sinner, hate the sin” instead of “all rich people are greedy, amoral, not doing their part, to be pitied, etc.” I am angry and hurt, and trying not to respond by withdrawing all my financial support from UUism. It would be a childish thing to do, but being called names is making me feel like a child.

    “To those whom much is given, much is expected.” I guess I am expected to turn the other cheek and give money to those who are “hating on the Richie Riches.” If you were hated for the very resources you are expected, nay demanded, to contribute to the community, how would you respond?

    Those who say, “Oh, boo hoo, rich person. Go comfort yourself with your bags of money,” show a real lack of understanding of how other humans truly operate.

    Will someone please give me a reason to want to stay in this conversation?

    Comment by Anonymous — June 12, 2008 #

29. PB, I noticed you’re still inserting comments into people’s posts. If you feel you must do it that way, could you put your comments in bold and make them separate paragraphs? I confess, it continues to feel intrusive to me, but it is your blog.

    CC, Jesus’s followers only left the people who wouldn’t go with them.

    As for concepts of wealth, Cubans live as long as Americans thanks to their universal health care, but that doesn’t mean Cubans are rich. It just means they’re wise in their use of their resources. It doesn’t excuse us for not sharing our resources with them.

    Sun Warrior, one quibble. This is wealth in the US: The top 1% has 38%. The next 9% has 33%. The next 50% has 29%. The bottom 40% has less than 1%. That bottom 40%, which effectively has no wealth at all, is not part of the world’s richest 10%.

    But the upper 60%, yes. They’re rich, and the saddest thing is that so few of them see what their wealth does to them or others.

    And lest a patriot jump in saying that the US’s wealthless 40% lives better than people with no wealth elsewhere, the answer is there are better and worse places to be poor in the US, but no one would be poor anywhere, if the rich would only share.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

30. Fausto, I agree with Thoreau: In times of unjust war, you should not support your government with your taxes. So I live very, very simply. As I said elsewhere, it’s easier for me to make this choice because I have no children.

    There is an argument that I should move to Canada and try to make a lot of money there, but right now, I am literally worthless. Canada would not want me. It’s a Catch-22, but life’s like that.

    Carnegie did not give away all his money. He died in a mansion, cared for by his servants.

    Jesus could have made a lot more money working for the Romans. Do you think he should have?

    And let me try again to make this clear: I’m not judging you. I’m judging the class system. The rich are victims, too, and in a fair society, the people who were rich would live as well as everyone else. No one would punish them for having withheld their wealth from the poor. They only did what they were taught to do.

    Jonathan, what you’re seeing here is broader than what you’re asking for, and I think that’s proper here. I greatly like Fausto’s last paragraph to you, with this quibble: the rich are not an “undifferentiated” group. The rich are an extremely differentiated group by virtue of their wealth. Remember, 10% has 70%, 50% has 30%, and 40% has none.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

31. And this morning’s typo: “there are better and worse places to be poor *than* the US”

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

32. (((Jesus’s followers only left the people who wouldn’t go with them)))

    Do you have textual support for that? Luke 5:11 sure doesn’t make it sound like the wives and children were even asked.

    (And Luke is the only book that cares if Mary consented to bear Jesus, so it’s a sentimental favorite.)

    And the US is 18th in the world for life expectancy, while Cuba’s 34th according to the CIA world factbook, while the UN has the US at 24th and Cuba at 37th. (The differences mostly come down to what the two lists do with ties. The numbers are really close.)

    Of course, as Cuba is a dictatorship, they release the numbers they want to and do not allow independent investigations into their statistics. (And by the way, the hospital Micheal Moore toured in his movie is one that is primarily set up for wealthy westerners as Cuba is a prime medical tourism location.)

    But even if the life expectancies were equal, that wouldn’t impact my argument much as my point is that by any reasonable measure pretty much all Americans are rich, so these “rich people who won’t share enough” everyone keeps talking about are the people posting on this very thread…

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

33. I think I may have accidentally become one of the rich who everyone is wailing over. I have a knee jerk awareness of how fortunate I am. 20 years ago I suffered a life threatening accident 6 months out of professional school which I had attended on the hand to mouth plan. My future looked incredibly bleak. After several years of rehabilitation I was able to return to the work I had trained for in health care. Since then I have saved aggressively in my retirement plan, as it wouldn’t take much to put me back in to the dire straits of 20 years ago again. I do share my gifts with my church and provide care w/ other colleagues in an underserved part of the world, generally once a year in very crude conditions. I am thankful for my good fortune but understand it may be gone in the blink of an eye. I do not consider myself christian yet admire the teachings of christ. I am a huge fan of liberation theology. I am doing my part both financially & with sweat (literally) equity. I will continue to provide for myself in case of disaster.

    Comment by Juana la loca — June 12, 2008 #

34. CC, Luke is my favorite, too. It’s hard to tell what’s been left out of the gospels, but there’s nothing in them forbidding women or children from following Jesus. I look at the women who are mentioned as his supporters, and I suspect they’re named because they stayed home, cooking and caring for children, while others went out. But note that the people who went out were not all male. That may be clearer if you look at Acts: two by two included a man with a woman.

    As for Cuba, about ten years ago, it did better than the US in both life expectancy and infant mortality. The US has pulled a tiny bit ahead in life expectancy, but they’re still very close. From here: “According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the chance of a Cuban child dying at five years of age or younger is 7 per 1000 live births in Cuba, while it’s 8 per 1000 in the US. WHO reports that Cuban males have a life expectancy at birth of 75 years and females 79 years. In comparison, the US life expectancy at birth is 75 and 80 years for males and females, respectively. Cuba’s infant mortality rate is lower than the US with 5 deaths per thousand in Cuba versus 7 per thousand in the US. Cuba has nearly twice as many physicians as the U.S. — 5.91 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.56 doctors per thousand, according to WHO.”

    Do you really think the 40% of Americans who have less than 1% of the wealth are rich?

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

35. Juana, so long as we live in an unjust society, you’re wise to keep something for yourself. The question is how much: where does wisdom end and greed begin?

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

36. Fausto: “When I get rich enough to quit my day job and devote full time to philosophy, I’ll be sure to set up a charitable foundation to take care of the needy first, and then once I’m on firmer ground with my own morality maybe I’ll be able to keep my poor neglected blog a little more current as well, as well as participate more consistently elsewhere.”

    Perhaps you could pursue a job with a charitable foundation, or a public agency serving the economically disadvantaged, and so continue to meet your economic needs while lessening the time it takes to get on firmer ground with your own morality?

    I myself am wary of implying that PeaceBang, or any of the other folks involved in this thread, have their moral priorities out of order because they are choosing to engage in this discussion prior to getting rich or donating their excess wealth to a charitable foundation. [What? Where? I’m getting rich? I am? Sorry to miss this good news — I’ve been out the past few days attending to the death of one of my dearest parishioners, for whom I was health care proxy and primary caregiver. — PB ] In my view, a sound philosophy is prerequisite: it directs our labor toward its proper ends, and it helps us understand how best to dispose of good fortune should we happen upon it.

    Anyway, I think what I am hearing you say is that you are disinclined to play the game I proposed. Fair enough.

    Ogre: thanks for the feedback. Time is of the essence. As a matter of politeness, I’m thinking now that I should have directed my proposal to PeaceBang first, anyway, to see if she wanted that kind of game played on her blog. [Sorry not to be able to respond to this; I’ve been skimming the comments mostly and so far don’t see any games, just passionate conversation. -PB]

    Will: “Jonathan, what you’re seeing here is broader than what you’re asking for, and I think that’s proper here. I greatly like Fausto’s last paragraph to you, with this quibble: the rich are not an “undifferentiated” group. The rich are an extremely differentiated group by virtue of their wealth. Remember, 10% has 70%, 50% has 30%, and 40% has none.”

    I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you are trying to tell me here. Do you mind breaking it down for me?

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

37. (((Do you really think the 40% of Americans who have less than 1% of the wealth are rich?)))

    If they have running water, they are better off than half the world. Don’t you think the folks who are better off than half the world have a duty to the poorer half?

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

38. And again, every statistic we have about Cuba is approved by it’s dictatorship government, and what independent investigations there have been have painted a much bleaker picture.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

39. When I look at the large Christian Churches in my Southern state I see huge beams of light focusing on huge crosses… I take these as landing lights for Jesus to smite them!

    It isn’t just the idea of wealth, it is the justification that my wealth is ok, Jesus would approve of my wealth, blah blah blah… I think when we have to jump in and justify ourselves we are moving away from what he said.

    Then again I am just waiting for him to come back as start smiting the place!

    Comment by jacqueline — June 12, 2008 #

40. Jonathan, apologies for writing in haste there. I meant to say:

    1. Your proposed discussion is interesting, but it’s different than the one that’s going on now, and it’s awfully time-consuming. I’ll need a break from blogging soon, so I couldn’t commit to it.

    2. I like what Fausto said, especially the bit about being a student. I feel that way, too.

    3. But that paragraph contained one bit I disagree with. Fausto continues to have trouble understanding the difference between categories like gender and race, which an individual can’t change without a lot of medical assistance, and wealth, which poor people can’t do much about, but which rich people can do a great deal about.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

41. CC, I do believe we should make sure everyone has clean water. Regarding WHO, it isn’t a Cuban organization. Regarding the CIA figures, while I think the CIA can lie and shade the truth when it’s politically convenient, I doubt they would distort Cuban statistics to make them look better than they really are.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

42. I’ve only got a moment to steal right now, but in response to some themes raised by PB, Jonathan, and Rev. Steelman, here is an excerpt for John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon “A Model of Christian Charity”, preached on board ship to the passengers who would soon form our own First Church in Boston:

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.

    The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.”

    For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

    And to shut this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deut. 30. “Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil,” in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it.

    Therefore let us choose life,

    that we and our seed may live,

    by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him,

    for He is our life and our prosperity.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

43. I agree that the WHO is not a Cuban Organization.

    However, again, the WHO is getting its statistics on Cuban healthcare FROM THE CASTRO GOVERNMENT.

    Castro has killed a whole hell of a lot of people and put a whole hell of a lot more in forced labor camps. Do you really think he’s above lying to the UN or showing them only what they want to see?

    And FWIW, the Wikipedia article you linked to cites the high abortion rate of fetuses with problems, as a factor in the low numbers of babies who die. Cuba has a 50 percent higher abortion rate than America.

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

44. fausto offers words from Winthrop and I am struck by this section:

    For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

    Claiming city-on-the-hilldom is something that America absorbed. This is probably the best known part of this, in fact. But that’s not what caught me. But rather, this:

    … we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

    Um… yeah. And just what does the word “Puritan” conjure up these days?

    Sorry for the tangent; that was just a distinct “ow” moment for me. I’d have to say John Winthrop was right on the money there. At least that part. And lo, what was it that the Standing Order became, even before it split into the Congregationalists and Unitarians… the Boston and Massachusetts elite, the rich and powerful–to the point that the ditty about some of them ends “… and the Cabots spoke only to God.”

    Lord Acton’s observation that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” seems to apply–and wealth is inescapably a form of power. In a democratic society, it is power that is not gained or held or wielded with the authority or the approval of the sovereign people. I guess that’s part of my deep suspicion of significant wealth. It not (just) that the love of money is the root of all evil. It’s that wealth most often has an effect that we mythically project into dragons, curled up and hording, raiding the innocent village and town to steal and to devour and carry off innocent victims.

    I think we’re talking here about something that profound, that powerful–taming the dragons.

    Comment by ogre — June 12, 2008 #

45. Will, thank you for clarifying. In short, you are disinclined to participate. Fair enough.

    Some quick replies:

    1. I think what I proposed is to the point of the discussion happening here and an economical use of time.

    2. I’m glad that both you and Fausto are comfortable seeing yourselves as students.

    3. But it seems you are not quite finished instructing him!

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

46. I greatly like Fausto’s last paragraph to you, with this quibble: the rich are not an “undifferentiated” group. The rich are an extremely differentiated group by virtue of their wealth.

    Another brief hit-and-run:

    You misunderstand what I meant by “undifferentiated”. I meant an unwillingness to recognize differentiation within the group, not between those within the group and those on the outside.

    But since you are still trying to differentiate between “the rich” and everyone else, it’s worth mentioning that there is no clear economic, political, institutional, or legal boundary on which that division can be drawn, either. Wealth does indeed fall in a skewed distribution, but it’s a smooth and gradual rather than binary distribution, and individual membership in the “rich” category by any definition is fluid over time. Which makes your “rich” very different from, say, the feudal lords or slavers that you want to compare them to.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

47. (((it seems you are not quite finished instructing him!)))

    Is there a reason everybody keeps talking down to Fausto?

    Is it so impossible that Fausto might understand what you guys are saying and disagree?

    My husband was reading the other thread last night as I sat next to him and the one thing he couldn’t believe about the discussion was how often Fausto was smugly assured that if he’d only read this book or that book, surely he would immediately change his mind.

    Lots of us have read about Marx and communism and still weren’t all that impressed. It is possible that people disagree with you not out of ignorance of your position, but having studied your position and still finding it wrong?

    If you were talking to me the way you’ve consistently talked to him, I would not still be posting here, and he’s a lot more accomplished and articulate than I am.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

48. This is off topic, but in response to a few comments made here: Having been to Cuba to visit relatives, I have to say that quality of life did not seem to be any more an issue there than here. Even the many Cubans I met who disliked Castro didn’t complain about that. People have less money and even less public services (as in roads, electricity, etc.) but two of the biggest indicators of quality of life in any nation are public health and reproductive rights of women. Cuba has a lot of problems (one of them being the US government) but has managed to do a decent job on those two fronts.

    One of these days I need to write a post about Cuba and why I dread what will happen to it after Castro’s regime (as much as I disagree with it) ends.

    Comment by h sofia — June 12, 2008 #

49. I’m glad your relatives’ experience hasn’t been so bad. And yes, reproductive choice for women is, to put it mildly, not an issue there.

    FWIW, here’s Micheal Moore repeatedly ducking the question of whether the statistics the UN relies on are accurate.

    Now, a lot of the quotes are from anti-Castro activists, I’m not asking you to take those at face value, but it is interesting to watch Moore sidestep the challenge to the accuracy of his words.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 12, 2008 #

50. Thank you, Fausto, for sharing the excerpt from John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon “A Model of Christian Charity.” It’s an excellent contribution to the discussion…I can tell that I will be reflecting on it for a while.

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

51. But that’s not what caught me. But rather, this:

    Yeah, too few readers today read it in context; they stop at the pithy sound bite and miss Winthrop’s larger point. That’s why I included the whole section.

    In the same vein, too few UUs today acknowledge our Puritan heritage, nor the many originally Puritan traits, both good and bad, that we still retain. I mentioned on the first thread in this series that the the 19th century Unitarian theology of “salvation by character” was an evolution of the 17th century Puritan theology of “visible sainthood”, but with the way the conversation has gone since, there hasn’t been much of an opportunity to unpack that idea.

    Incidentally, the “Cabots speak only to God” quote, if I’m not mistaken, dates from after the schism. That’s all about us; don’t put that one on the Puritans.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

52. Is there a reason everybody keeps talking down to Fausto?

    Is it so impossible that Fausto might understand what you guys are saying and disagree?

    It’s okay. There’s an old Confucian saying: “The ox is slow, but the earth is patient.”

    They will all see the light eventually.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

53. Just to clarify, Chalicechick, my comment to Will that “it seems you are not quite finished instructing him” was not a jab at Fausto, but a gentle rebuke of Will, who was not only speaking out of turn against Fausto, but also patently contradicting his own claim to intellectual humility.

    In one sentence Will claims to be on the same level as Fausto as a student; in the next sentence he takes up the instructor’s rod against Fausto.

    But then Will is just a self-professed student, so his passion is both understandable and commendable. A teacher would recognize by now that Fausto is no slouch, and is certainly well aware of the general differences between gender, race, and wealth as human attributes. Such straw-man antics are unworthy of Fausto’s higher potential and of the discussion in general.

    To be fair, Chalicechick, I probably should have made this more clear, in order to prevent just the misunderstanding I seem to have created.

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

54. Fausto, I love Micah. I’m always surprised when rich people cite him, though. They skip things like this, from the third chapter:

    11 Her leaders judge for bribes, and her priests teach for a price, and her prophets of it tell fortunes for money: yet they lean on Yahweh, and say, “Isn’t Yahweh in the midst of us? No disaster will come on us.”

    12 Therefore Zion for your sake will be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem will become heaps of rubble, and the mountain of the temple like the high places of a forest.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

55. There you go again with the namecalling, Will.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

56. Fausto, I also like James. From chapter 1:

    9 But let the brother in humble circumstances glory in his high position; 10 and the rich, in that he is made humble, because like the flower in the grass, he will pass away. 11 For the sun arises with the scorching wind, and withers the grass, and the flower in it falls, and the beauty of its appearance perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in his pursuits.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

57. Somehow Will, I think any preparation for the long term is looked down upon by many of the folks posting here. To suggest there is an element of greed when one looks ahead & plans is pretty poor. As a single person, with a boatload of nieces & nephews & I’m leaving any extra I have saved to my church. my theory is that if I don’t save enough I’ll live forever & if I save too much I’ll die young like my parents did. Who knows where the tipping point is, I’d like to make sure I don’t end up in dire straits & as a burden to those I care for.

    Comment by Juana la loca — June 12, 2008 #

58. Fausto: “They will all see the light eventually.”

    Universalism in a nutshell. I like it.

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

59. Jonathan, Fausto’s still instructing me, so it all works out! *g*

    Fausto, have I ever said all rich people are the same? Quote me if I have, I beg you! Of course some are nicer than others–that’s true of every group. But not all groups are equal. You ducked my question about slavers earlier, but some slavers were far more ethical than others. Did that justify their group? Because you ducked it earlier, I’ll stress this: I prefer the rich today to the rich of the 19th century. I’d rather be a worker under Bill Gates than a slave under Thomas Jefferson.

    But my concept of the progress of history is not toward a greater gap between the rich and poor. Right now, we’re marching toward the divide between Eloi and Morlocks. You seem to be content with that.

    And how “smooth and gradual” is a distribution in which 40% of the people have less than 1% of the wealth, and 1% has 37%?

    CC, Fausto has said things that in my younger days would’ve offended me. I suspect you’re missing aspects of his tone because you sympathize with his position.

    Hafidha, I would love to read that!

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

60. I’m so glad, Will, that you got the intended humor and even affection in my comment. Yes, it does indeed all work out.

    Comment by Jonathan — June 12, 2008 #

61. And now it’s time for me to bow out of this discussion also. If there’s something you think I need to read, email me or stop by my blog.

    With a wish of peace to all now, and the hope that the poor will inherit the earth soon–

    Will

    Comment by will shetterly — June 12, 2008 #

62. Fausto, have I ever said all rich people are the same? Quote me if I have, I beg you!

    Okay: “The problem with the rich is at some fundamental level, they just don’t care about poor folks–if they did, they would share.”

    I don’t see how that means anything else than that anyone who is rich doesn’t care about the poor and doesn’t share, and anyone who cares about the poor and shares is not rich.

    And how “smooth and gradual” is a distribution in which 40% of the people have less than 1% of the wealth, and 1% has 37%?

    (I don’t know about the accuracy of your proportions, but they’re close enough for the sale of the discussion.)

    Here is a binary or bimodal distribution curve. It has two modes (high points on the curve where the greatest number of data points fall) rather than one, and the data points all cluster around one mode or the other. Almost no data points could just as easily be assigned to one group as the other. There’s no arbitrariness or subjectivity about it. If it were an income distribution curve, it would very clearly differentiate “rich” and “poor”.

    Here is a distribution curve (well, it’s actually drawn as a cutesy bar chart, but you can visualize where the curve would fall) that is skewed (meaning that the distribution on either side of the single mode is asymmetrical), but smooth and gradual (the distribution of all the data points falls away from the single mode in a continuous, unbroken slope and direction). It also happens to be the actual 2005 US household income distribution curve. “The Rich” fall in the long tail beginning somewhere to the right side of the curve, but there is no obvious point where “everyone else” ends and “the rich” begins. To make such a division, you have to draw a completely arbitrary cutoff line, with almost no actual difference between the data points that fall just to one side or just to the other.

    Comment by fausto — June 12, 2008 #

63. The first problem, as already noted, is defining what is “rich.” In my experience, many people of my generation have a lot of things, decent incomes, but no real wealth. They have stuff, depreciating stuff, but nothing substantive to provide for them or others in times of need (like say, a recession or retirement).

    Secondly, my preference is to judge a person with wisdom and compassion, based on his/her character rather than some simplistic tag (Republican/Democrat/Christian/Atheist etc.). All people have a moral duty to help others if and when they can; hating someone because they have more money than you accomplishes 2 things: 1. It has absolutely no affect on the person you hate and 2. It makes you feel crappy, crabby, and is poisonous to the soul.

    Comment by NDM — June 12, 2008 #

64. I cannot reply to the postings here or quote scripture greatly but the history of the early church does point to an early thread in Christian theology that did bemoan the fact that some Christians who were rich did not share their wealth. Paul was aggravated that these wealthy people considered themselves better than their poorer fellow travelers. They were still responding to the ethos of Roman culture that revered wealth and power rather than the Christian ethos that claimed defiantly that all were holy, all were worthy. The early church though was one of the few institutions that traversed social boundaries. When ancient Christians gave their “love feasts” they provided food for all because Jesus told them that every person had a soul, a holy spirit. They were also honoring the generous spirit of Jesus that dwelled among them as well. Part of the journey of the early church was that it challenged human beings to recognize the sacred in those shunned by society and said that their souls were as sacred to God as those who were wealthy.

    Jesus though generally preached against the corruption of wealth and power. “Rich in things and poor in soul,” as the old hymn phrased it. It is not the possession of wealth that is spiritually depleting as much as it is the love of that wealth. When Chaucer’s character misquoted the Bible, “Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas,” (1 Timothy 6,10) it is understood that “The love of money is the root of all evil.” It should be considered that the “love of money” is the problem and not the money itself.

    I have seen this lived out too many times with wealthy Unitarian Universalists who gave money to their churches and to charity. I have also experienced the other side with wealthy people who complained that their church wasted money on paperclips. If ever I feel anger at someone who is rich I have to ask whether my anger is really not envy of his or her wealth.

    Comment by Larry Smith — June 12, 2008 #

65. CC - I think your point is that there are no reliable or trustworthy statistics about Cuba?

    Also, I only met three relatives in Cuba; the rest of the people I met were not relatives at all.

    Comment by h sofia — June 13, 2008 #

66. Juana, it’s not that preparing for the future is looked down on. It’s that in the large, there’s something sorely defective in the social compact, in the community… when some of us are worrying and preparing against the possibility of being pinched or hungry years from now, against the reality of others suffering right now, here, close at hand (for starters).

    I’m not saying it’s wrong to be concerned. As will pointed out, given the nature of society now, them’s the rules, and you’re playing by them. But in a saner society, we’d be providing health care for all, and we’d be ensuring that no one went hungry or homeless. We’d have a society where we’d all be looking to provide for our own futures as well as our collective future, without the fear that we, individually, would be destitute, homeless, hungry….

    NDM, rather than obsessing with where the smudged line between the wealthy and the not- is, how about this; those in the upper 1.5%, owning way over a third of the nation’s wealth, are wealthy (that’s the income bracket of $250,000/yr), and those in the upper 0.1% are the extremely wealthy.

    (Leonard Beeghley describes the group below the upper 1% as the ’simply rich,’ who constitute roughly 5% of U.S. households and their wealth is largely in the form of home equity. Though clearly not poor in any imaginable sense, their wealth and assets aren’t in that super-rich category.)

    (There are 15,000 families (0.01% of the population) in the US who last year had an annual income of $9.5 million or more, took in 5% of the national income.)

    Between 1979 and 2005 the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by an inflation adjusted 176%. Their share of the national income is now at its highest levels since 1928.

    If we want to be looking out for their best interests (long term), taxing them more would be wise. There’s a level of income and wealth disparity which develops into an “eat the rich” attitude. When we hit that, it’s probably too late.

    Comment by ogre — June 13, 2008 #

67. Sorry about that, there was a missing /i in there and much that wasn’t intended to be italicized is.

    Comment by ogre — June 13, 2008 #

68. Following the logic here. Should churches with endowments be giving their money away? rather than using that to ensure their futures? All of it or just part of it?

    Comment by Juana la loca — June 13, 2008 #

69. Can I say that I’m really disappointed in some of the views expressed here over the last couple days? I’m pretty affluent, being that I’ve got a good job and I’m single, so really I’ve got some surplus money stocked away. I’m offended by some of the suggestions here from so-called liberals that rich people = bad, poor or middle class people = good. It’s not that simple.

    Yes, I think some corporate American tycoons are a bit stingy. Yes, I think a lot of Republicans are stingy too. BUT, that is the choice they are afforded in their richness. They dont HAVE to donate or be socially responsible just as middle class people dont HAVE to be. That’s why donations are voluntary and volunteer time is something you give out of the kindness of your heart. If you dont have kindness in your heart or the time to give a little of yourself, that is probably the way you are, rich or poor. I know many middle class people who are stingy with their money and who do not donate their time to any causes. That’s their perogative. It’s everyone’s perogative to do what they want with the money they have earned.

    I personally do donate money to favorite charities quite regularly and I gladly do it. I’ve always felt that when I’ve got some extra, it’s my obligation to give back to the community at large that has helped me, ultimately, to gain whatever success (though minor) that I have. I also volunteer for a hospice and my cycling club. I do give of myself. But I do it because I want to, because I care, not because I feel I have to.

    I know it’s going to sound awefully Republican of me, and I’ll probably get my liberal card revoked, but I do not think it’s the responsibility of the rich to take care of the poor. Do I personally think people with money SHOULD give of themselves and their money? YES! But do I think we should force them?? NO! What good is charity given grudgingly? What does that mean? They have to answer to their god and their morality codes if they are breaking the idealogies of their own religions.

    People have the right to work hard and become successful. We should not demonize these people. Everyone on here is talking as though they go through life AVOIDING success based on some morality they feel that makes them better people. You can be successful and be a good person. As if attaining success will change you. I’m proud of my accomplishments. I’m sorry if that makes me a bad person. But I’ve worked very hard in this life to get somewhere with myself, often sacrificing artistic goals, because I didn’t want to be a “starving artist.” I found a way to work the system and get ahead and still do something that I feel fulfilling (being a technical writer instead of the novelist I really would have liked to have been). There’s NOTHING wrong with that. Nothing at all. And it’s given me the freedom to travel, see the world, and give money where needed when I can. I’m glad I’m successful. I am not ashamed of it, not in the least. It’s given me the sort of life I’ve wanted.

    Comment by Mars Girl — June 13, 2008 #

70. Ogre,

    Before we increase or decrease taxes for anyone, I think the larger issue is what is our tax money be used for? I just watched a report on FEMA’s failure to distribute materials (dishes, clothing, other basic items) to Katrina victims, and instead gave the stuff away to other states for free. We need to hold our country’s leaders accountable for how they spend our tax dollars; Americans in general seem to forget that we pay taxes in exchange for services. Are we getting good value for money? It seems to me that we aren’t, when N.O. is still a mess, our infrastructure is in trouble, we have people who, as you point out, don’t have food or healthcare…I find it hard to believe that the US government has money for things like propping up the dictatorship in Pakistan ($10B this decade) but we can’t fix the levies in Louisiana, which have been in need of upgrade/repair for a long time.

    It’s easy to get angry at the wealthy, and personally I would be happy if the Oprahs, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffetts used their money to fix a road, build a bridge, install a levy system. Maybe such displays of wealth and power would shame the government to get its act together.

    Comment by NDM — June 13, 2008 #

71. There is all the difference between those who have abundant wealth and conspicuous consumers. Some cc’s have abundant debt, rather than abundant wealth. Those with abundant wealth may or may not like highly visible luxury goods. Happily, most of the UUs I know tend to honor that distinction.

    As a poor person, I would object to the idea of a prefential option for the poor. There are plenty of pure s**ts in our neighborhoods — people who prey on those with only a wee bit in this world, those who exploit some source of easy money, no matter how small, those whose pride in the workplace focuses not on doing a good job but on fooling the boss.

    I come from and survive thanks to an affluent family of very good people: it is long ago that that our major gift-giving occasions shifted their wish-lists from personal goods to the local or international food banks. I enjoy life in the inner city due to good people with and without money.

    I have come to the conclusion that money — no matter how much — is a completely morally neutral entity. If you have little and use it well, you rank with the people who have much and use it well. If you have little and use it as an excuse for bad behavior, you are no better than a conspicuous consumer.

    Comment by Elz — June 13, 2008 #

72. Elz: There is all the difference between those who have abundant wealth and conspicuous consumers.

    “Conspicuous consumption!” I know someone would mention it eventually! Time to break out the syllabus, which includes:

    Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (source of the phrase) and The Theory of Business Enterprise

    Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (especially the sections on “creative destruction”

    Plato and Aristotle on leisure and meritocracy

    Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis

    Burton Folsom, The Myth of the Robber Barons

    Joseph Tuckerman (founder of what is now the UU Urban Ministry), On the Elevation of the Poor

    Gospel of Matthew, chapters 5-7

    William Ellery Channing, “Self-Culture”

    (note to Jonathan: If I’m being didactic here, it’s on the subjects of politics, economics and economic justice which I have studied, not on pastoral care which I have not)

    Larry: They were still responding to the ethos of Roman culture that revered wealth and power rather than the Christian ethos that claimed defiantly that all were holy, all were worthy. The early church though was one of the few institutions that traversed social boundaries. When ancient Christians gave their “love feasts” they provided food for all because Jesus told them that every person had a soul, a holy spirit.

    I think our own John Winthrop was speaking in the same spirit when he said that “the only way … to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.”

    Now, some of the participants of this discussion may think they are saying exactly the same thing as Winthrop did when they criticize “the rich” for failing, in Winthrop’s words, to “abridge [them]selves of [their] superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. But there is in fact a critical difference: Winthrop speaks in the first person, not the third person. Using the first person underscores that we are all bound together in covenant [Ding ding ding! UU Puritan heritage alarm!] with one another as a single organic body. To Winthrop, our neighbor’s failures are necessarily also our own. No member of Winthrop’s congregation would have felt it acceptable to sit in segregated self-sufficiency and self-congratulation while a neighbor remained either in material need or in moral error, but in either case would have expended extra effort to help rather than to scold.

    In contrast, using the third person rather than the first segregates the self-righteous “us” from the villainous “them”. It says, “I’m all right, Jack; the bad guys are the ones over there, and ain’t it awful how despicable they are.” And it even makes no difference whether, in the mind of “us, “them” is the selfish rich or the selfish poor; the third-person moral position is the same either way.

    Comment by fausto — June 13, 2008 #

73. H sofia-

    My central point is that by global standards, pretty much everyone in America is rich, so the people on this board who talk about the rich as a “they” should really be talking about the rich as an “Us” and should apply their recommendations for the rich to themselves.

    Several times in the previous thread, people said that the average income in America is X or Y, and people who make more than that should give the extra to the poor. I pointed out that if you applied this theory globally, everyone with running water lived above the average standard of living and should start selling their stuff and sending it to the Sierra Leone, in keeping with their own moral standards.

    And the backpedaling began.

    Will brought up Cuba and implied that I was saying that because Cubans have good healthcare I was saying that Americans shouldn’t take care of them. That wasn’t my point at all. But he also misrepresented the statistics in Cuba’s favor, and by this I mean the statistics that I suspect are ALREADY misrepresented in Cuba’s favor, given that a great many people claim that a sort of “medical apartheid” goes on in Cuba where the excellent healthcare goes primarily to party leaders and to wealthy tourists such as Micheal Moore. At some point, I read a news article where a reporter stayed in a poor neighborhood and found that the local pharmacy had so few supplies that they couldn’t even sell her aspirin.

    But assuming Will’s assertions are right and that Cuba does have equal or superior healthcare to the United States, applying my central point to Cuba would be that Cubans theoretically should be sending doctors and medical supplies to, say, Nigeria.

    But Cuba wasn’t really part of my central point.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 13, 2008 #

74. (((In the same vein, too few UUs today acknowledge our Puritan heritage, nor the many originally Puritan traits, both good and bad, that we still retain)))

    I have thought of that over and over throughout this discussion.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 13, 2008 #

75. CC: Is there something wrong with Winthrop’s sermon, in your view?

    Comment by Jonathan — June 13, 2008 #

76. It’s theism doesn’t particularly resonate with me. That aside, I don’t mind it as ideals, particularly for the puritans who seemed to embrace it pretty universally and pretty much all work toward that city for awhile.

    I don’t object to the sermons ideas so much as I object to people’s selective application of them. As in, “those rich people over there should be building the poor a city on the hill. I don’t percieve I’m rich, so I will just stand here and bark orders and supervise the job” which is the vibe I’ve gotten from this thread and its sisters.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — June 13, 2008 #

77. CC: I see. So you are saying that you don’t object to the ideals of the sermon as long as we all follow them?

    Comment by Jonathan — June 13, 2008 #

78. Hi, I’m back, but I hope only briefly.

    A data point I found yesterday: If we shared the wealth in the US, every household’s worth would be $380,100. Instead, 20% of Americans are in debt, and 30% are only worth $5000 or less.

    CC, given your obsession with Cuba, you should learn more about it. Cuba has been sending doctors to the rest of the world since its medical programs began. Really, John Stossel is a good source of rightwing propaganda, but not a great source of information.

    Comment by will shetterly — June 13, 2008 #

79. 1. I don’t believe that any specific place has a covenant with God. Not even Fairfax County, Virginia, which may think it does.

    2. Living in a way where we encourage one another “to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God” works for me, even if the concept of a God doesn’t exactly.

    3. I think the stuff about being bonded together and acting as one can be interpreted in a lot of ways, and I don’t personally interpret it too exteremly. I do believe in individual accomplishment and achievement. And the natural world certainly seems to be designed, by the hand of science, nature or God, to reward both individual achievement and working together in their places.

    4. I believe that the research and discovery records of countries with socialized medicine indicate that SOMEBODY has to be a capitalist if we ever want to cure any new diseases, and I don’t mind at all if that capitalist place is the place where I live. In primative times, tribes shared everything and grew and hunted their own organic food. The life expectancy was also about 30. I turn 30 in a month. I’m sticking with capitalism.

    5. I’m not one for evangelism.

    Ok, rereading the speech excerpt fully and thinking about its implications, I can totally see why these folks got kicked out of England. And I certainly don’t approve of their “God will punish our community if we let people run around violating our covenant with God” interpretation of all that.

    But there is something to be said for wanting to set a good example for the world, and I can respect