From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 28 2005 - 18:51:56 BST
Hi Erin,
[You wrote]
I know you have said this but just the idea of saying that a wealthy
Christian is a hypocrite TO ME is judging the person based on wealth. I
think it makes more sense to judge whether they are living their
beliefs/being hypocritical or not by their actions. I get that you
don't think you are judging a person by this statement but now can you
get that I think you are. It's not that I don't read what you
write...I just disagree with you. k?
[Arlo]
Sure. I understand that you disagree. And I understand you've been
taking me to task for what you feel are poor rhetorical choices. Maybe
there is something to that.
Let me try to tease something apart here. When I say a "wealthy
christian is a hypocrit", and you say I am judging them by their wealth,
you are part right, but part wrong. I am judging them based on their
wealth *and* the moral code they proclaim to have. For all intents and
purposes, I think a "wealthy buddhist" would be a hypocrit as well. My
reading, or to the best of my understanding, of these spiritual
traditions, is that they both advance an ascentic, non-material
existence. They both focus on improving "the self" by virtue of "doing
Good", whether the 10 fold path or the 10 commandments. They both focus
on the importance of helping the less fortunate.
It no real revelation to say that Christianity in the West has been
hijacked by powers (social and economic) that are more concerned with
mere lipservice to this message, while justifiying and legitimatizing a
dialogue that stresses "economic value" or "the pursuit of wealth" as
the highest good. This started, I believe, with the Roman Empire, and
has continued unchallenged by mainstream congregations to this day. I
can't imagine for one moment that the Jesus of the Bible, that I read,
would be okay with coming down and seeing a church filled with wealthy
people who, for the most part, either ignore the poor, or treat them
with disdain. But, this is lost on congregations all to desirous of a
simply weekly "pat of the back" and nothing more.
The greater problem, however (in my opinion), is not the hypocrisy of
certain individuals, but the overall dialogue that has caused, and
sustains, an inability to address the issue. Namely, there is no way, in
the current moral dialogue, to challenge "the pursuit of wealth" as
anything other than an axiomatic Good.
Bill O'Reilly today, as he has been since Katrina's effects hit, has
been railing against the oil companies for "jacking up their profits",
for "hitting the working guy when he's down", for "placing money above
doing what's right". These are all, by the way, exact quotes. O'Reilly
is dead on, but lacks through no fault of his own, a language that can
really address the problem or offer solutions. The oil executives
behaved "selfishly", and should be "ashamed", he says. But why? Really?
Isn't the "free market" all about earning whatever you can? Wouldnt' we
all do the same? How can we criticize the oil companies for maximizing
their profits by "sticking it to the working joe" (still all exact
quotes), and yet not criticize, for example, GM for slashing healthcare
to the assembly line workers while their CEO and board are earning
millions in bonuses and options?
In this one example of Katrina, I think many good people did wake up and
realize that the unassailed pursuit of wealth/profits must have some
reign, but from where? Government? Religion? At what point does
additional profit for me cease to outweigh the harm done to others? Is
there a point? Should the pursuit of wealth never face a moral
challenge? Would any moral challenge come at the risk of sending the
Platts of this world off to gulags? (That's an inside joke)
These are the underlying questions that I feel must be addressed and
answered. The malady of hypcrisy in religion is a mere symptom of this
greater discursive problem. And this is also precisely the issue of when
duty to others (say, accepting less profits for your oil so that regular
people can afford to heat their homes) outweighs duty to self
(maximizing profits are our only moral concern).
Arlo
PS: By the way, I hold the Amish as good examples of those who adhere to
the christian message. But, I don't think their way of life is ideal,
although I envy many aspects of their community-mindedness. Their
rejection of technology has led (in my opinion) to a continuation of
biological suffering (which they call "Gotteswille", or as you've likely
guess, "God's Will", which I flatly reject), not to mention possible
genetic damage that will cause their culture to die out in several
generations (yes, there is a lot of inbreeding damage, and genetic birth
defects, infant death and other associated health problems). I should
possibly clarify that the rejection of technology itself has not caused
genetic damage due to inbreeding, but the outmigration of members (and
the refusal to accept converts) in many ways due to their chosen ways
has brought the available gene pool to near insustainable size.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 18:57:44 BST