Today's sample from delanceyplace.com has been elucidated in other words here and there by both atheists and believers who get a bit tired of listening to the loudmouths and the prosperity gospel showmen who want to reinvent Jesus in their image. Unlike the believers, my view of Yeshua of Nazareth is that of a mirage - something that sure looks like its there, but only if you don't look too close. Even with that, a repeated theme in the gospels is that of caring for those who can't care for themselves, a message which too many of the Religious Reich don't appear to be horribly comfortable in acknowledging.
With that as introduction, permit me to present an excerpt from No! A Theological Response to Christian Reconstructionism, again with thanks to delanceyplace.com:
"[C]onsidering the issue of state obligation to care for the poor. [Some among the religious right] systematically deny that the state has any obligation to the poor; indeed any obligation to the general welfare of its citizens overall. Care for the poor is assigned solely to families and churches. ... In an era when the income gap between wealthy and poor is only growing greater, the question is hardly insignificant. We will proceed along two levels of reflection.
"Our first answer is simply to point out that the Bible does in fact assign care of the poor to the state, without any ambiguity. Psalm 72, perhaps written by David for Solomon to describe the duties of the ideal king, stresses obligation to the poor: 'May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy and crush the oppressor ... For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight'. This is not describing a family, or the church; this is a clear mandate to state obligation for the poor in a description of the ideal government. Again, the book of Proverbs likewise describes the duties of the ideal king in very similar terms: 'Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy'. It is precisely the role of the king to give voice to the voiceless in society.
"But here we need, in closing, to dig to a deeper, more profound level.
Jesus describes a final judgment in which all nations -- not families, not churches, but nations, including their governments -- will be gathered before him (Matt 25:31-46). Notice, by the way, that the much vaunted issue of national exceptionalism is a divine prerogative, not a human one; only Christ alone has the right to decide which nations are truly exceptional. How will he decide? He makes it crystal clear in this passage. Care for the poor is not an obligation of the state; it is in some sense the obligation of the state. Nations will not be judged by whether they have a powerful military; nor whether they have a strong middle class. Nations -- all nations -- will be judged, not by a fallible human judgment, but by the only judgment that really matters, by the Lord of all nations -- on one basis only: how did you care for the weak and the needy? Did you feed the hungry among you, or let them struggle to survive? Did you give the thirsty something to drink, or watch callously as they scrambled for every scrap? Do you provide for the health and well-being of the sick and the dying, or force them to choose between the medication they need and food to keep alive? Did you welcome the stranger to your shores, or with hardness of heart build walls to keep them away? Did you treat even the prisoners among you with the humanity they still retain, despite their mistakes in life? Did you provide clothing to the naked, or turn away from what is 'no concern of mine'? This is not a question of 'social policy.' Christ makes it all too clear that far more is at stake. How nations -- including their governments -- treat the poor, is how they treat Christ himself: 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me'."
Read the full entry from delanceyplace.com here.
I hope folks saw the PBS Frontline documentary on the Vatican and its Curia.
Tom, I am watching it now. Thanks.
"Care for the poor is not an obligation of the state; it is in some sense the obligation of the state."
That is my contention. No individual, no family, no community has the obligation to care for the poor; it is the obligation of the state to care for the poor.
At the same time, individuals have the responsibility to do all he or she can to be self-sufficient. Without a doubt some people cannot care for themselves. That is a fact. Therefore, those who can't care for themselves need to receive care from the state.
For those who choose not to care for themselves because it is easier to depend on others have a natural consequence of not having what they need, let alone what they want.
For those who are willing and able to work but there are no jobs, the state has an obligation to create jobs for them. That is what happened at the end of the Great Depression. Make work programs put people to work building highways, buildings, improving national parks, writing books, painting of all kinds, and with money in their pockets, they spent for food, shelter, health care, education, and all the other things upon which people spend money. Taxes began to flow into the coffers. This was a kick start that capitalism needs in order to function.
Gotta go, talk later. I have a doctor's appointment.
Well put, Joan.
May I Twitter this?
Please do, Joan!