Why does the Religious Right vote and fight against Social Mercy? (revised title)

Wait a sec.
Did you two read the article on raising the minimum wage?

The gentleman stated that all Walmart would have to do to provide a living wage is raise the cost of their products by One Cent, One Time. That's it. Covered.

We're talking about treating people right, aren't we? I think economics is a political issue, yes, and legislation that allows for corporations like McDonalds and Walmart to ask taxpayers to make up the difference for the low wages is bilking the system - meanwhile, the owners/shareholders are raking it in....and NOT paying taxes on funds they hide overseas, and NOT paying their employees enough to subsist on. Do you not see the problem there?

but people still have to eat! Obviously we can't let them starve, that is just WRONG. Morally wrong. For anyone, anywhere, ever.
So it comes down to morals in business. Morals in politics. Morals in religion.
Why are they so disparate?

I don't see society as neatly broken down into which issues are political, which are economic, and which are religious. Harm is harm. I see the deep ecology of it; the system is broken, but this Mr Unz has a very good case for raising the minimum wage so that people are not starving and/or being fed by taxpayers, when the corporations can afford to pay more, they just would take a minor percentage less 'profit' for themselves, and cycle it back into the economy where it belongs.

I agree that off-shoring and outsourcing were dreadful ideas, and I believe that people who are CEOs/board members of those giant corporations are getting off the hook, while taxpayers are AGAIN left holding the bag and supporting the very employees who are lining the pockets of the wealthy/shrewd. And who really pays?? The children. Over and over, generation by generation.

The article in the OP definitely did use religion to point out economic disparity, I won't defend it -- and certainly religion is not the sole culprit...I simply wanted to understand how people in poverty are persuaded to vote to continue their own poverty rather than accepting changes that would improve the lot of everyone (with the exception, perhaps, of the CEOs and corporate bean counters. Who don't need our help. And who issue their dictums of 'productivity and profit' from on high, and hold that profit/productivity as more important and valuable than the health and well-being of those doing the labor.)

Remember when Human Resources was coined as a phrase that meant a company was interested in taking responsibility for their employees? Now it's a joke.


Long live Pope Francis, in any case.

luciddream
If at some point in the future, if it were to be proven god is false and does not exist.

I will remain the same but you will be on a killing spree?

Don't worry, no amount of scientific discovery will ever convince me that the God I have come to know is just a figment of my imagination. Just as no amount of scientific discovery will ever convince you that He's real, and that’s just the way it is.

BuzzyWigs
Also, the irony of how the South was strongly Democratic during the Civil Rights era is rather gobsmacking...now they are Republicans? Why the switchover? What happened?

Didn't it begin with Governor Wallace in 1968?
As an independent presidential candidate, didn't he symbolise the feeling that if the Democrat movement was going to go pro-Civil Rights, the conservative South didn't want to belong to it any more?

reply to post by DISRAELI


I was wondering about that! I remember 1968, I was 9 when I started 5th grade and our teacher had us do a classroom 'presidential campaign'. Of course, we all just used our parents' voting choices for our little projects, but I recall we had to present a campaign brochure/poster or some such thing. All I remember now is I used blue construction paper and was a 'Nixon supporter' because my parents were.

The whole Watergate thing later was very fuzzy for me (my parents did not discuss politics with us kids),
but a few minutes ago I was thinking about the Rep/Dem feud and remembered the Clinton era. It wasn't until I had become a parent that I started paying any real attention to politics...

But maybe yes, that was when the flip occurred....!

BuzzyWigs
Wait a sec.
Did you two read the article on raising the minimum wage?

The gentleman stated that all Walmart would have to do to provide a living wage is raise the cost of their products by One Cent, One Time. That's it. Covered.

We're talking about treating people right, aren't we? I think economics is a political issue, yes, and legislation that allows for corporations like McDonalds and Walmart to ask taxpayers to make up the difference for the low wages is bilking the system - meanwhile, the owners/shareholders are raking it in....and NOT paying taxes on funds they hide overseas, and NOT paying their employees enough to subsist on. Do you not see the problem there?

but people still have to eat! Obviously we can't let them starve, that is just WRONG. Morally wrong. For anyone, anywhere, ever.
So it comes down to morals in business. Morals in politics. Morals in religion.
Why are they so disparate?

I don't see society as neatly broken down into which issues are political, which are economic, and which are religious. Harm is harm. I see the deep ecology of it; the system is broken, but this Mr Unz has a very good case for raising the minimum wage so that people are not starving and/or being fed by taxpayers, when the corporations can afford to pay more, they just would take a minor percentage less 'profit' for themselves, and cycle it back into the economy where it belongs.

I agree that off-shoring and outsourcing were dreadful ideas, and I believe that people who are CEOs/board members of those giant corporations are getting off the hook, while taxpayers are AGAIN left holding the bag and supporting the very employees who are lining the pockets of the wealthy/shrewd. And who really pays?? The children. Over and over, generation by generation.

The article in the OP definitely did use religion to point out economic disparity, I won't defend it -- and certainly religion is not the sole culprit...I simply wanted to understand how people in poverty are persuaded to vote to continue their own poverty rather than accepting changes that would improve the lot of everyone (with the exception, perhaps, of the CEOs and corporate bean counters. Who don't need our help. And who issue their dictums of 'productivity and profit' from on high, and hold that profit/productivity as more important and valuable than the health and well-being of those doing the labor.)

Remember when Human Resources was coined as a phrase that meant a company was interested in taking responsibility for their employees? Now it's a joke.

Long live Pope Francis, in any case.

Yes, I read every article I can about these things. There are some things I do agree with you about. This part of your argument is very viable and we can discuss this in a very civil manner, because it is part of the bigger discussion

I simply wanted to understand how people in poverty are persuaded to vote to continue their own poverty rather than accepting changes that would improve the lot of everyone (with the exception, perhaps, of the CEOs and corporate bean counters. Who don't need our help.

From what I have seen, those in poverty are constantly told to vote Democrat because it will improve their lot through social service agencies who hand checks out like water. This does not improve the lot of the people on the other side who are already struggling to ensure the checks get paid. But we aren't talking about corporate bean counters or CEOs in that equation.

There is a social group who is struggling to stay out of poverty and they do work, but they see it as an inequality because they are helping another social class to not have to struggle and yet don't work when jobs are available. That's the income disparity we are talking about. Let's say this, a single mother who determines not to raise her children on welfare has maybe two children. She then works 60 hours a week. She is paid $250/week, but she earned $300 that week. That $50 has now paid for real services such as police, fire, military, getting the roads fixed but it also paid for a welfare family of a grandmother, another single mother and 6 children who are not all siblings. That mother has given legal custody of her children to the grandmother, and also works, because her income is not counted toward the household income.

We are talking about two single mothers here. One has chosen not to go on welfare and the other has. But the single mom of two is now taking money away from her children to feed the 6 children in that other family, because the mother or mothers of those don't pay child support to the grandmother.

But they are both told to vote Democrat because Democrats care about them both. Now the single mother of two goes to work at a job where the CEO is a billionaire. She is treated unfairly at work, or so the media tells her, and yet she has a job because a corporation has hired her. The income disparity is now touted by the media of the single mother of two and the CEO. It doesn't present the single mom who has given custody of the grandmother of 6, all living in the same house, and no mother is paying child support, work and their incomes are not counted, even though they live in the home.

The media is biased against the CEO, makes the single mother of two look like a victim of corporate slavery and mentions nothing about the other family. When a Republican or Religious Right stands up to point this out, the media tells people that the Republicans only care about corporate interests. However, without corporations there would be no jobs to begin with. Unfortunately 20 million single mothers of two are paying for other families such as that. And yet the Democrats say the single mom of two is doing her part, because the other family needs the help more, they are victims of social oppression.

Those who vote for continued government benefits, even though they are in "poverty", their incomes from benefits are not reported by the Democrats. So my view is that the single mother of two struggling to stay out of the welfare system is deeper in poverty. She deserves help, but she is working, therefore doesn't qualify for help.

That's the real income disparity.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I'm a little confused. The media says that it's the impoverished and struggling who are buying the GOP rhetoric and vocally vilifying the government's efforts....
but you've said that those in the South of your family/acquaintance are told to vote Democrat.

This was another confusing thing for me - I thought Obama's victory (if it wasn't rigged to begin with) showed that working people wanted the so-called Hope and Change; but now they are dead-set against the same man??

I really don't understand what's going on with it.
It seems the GOP is indeed stoking the fires, and from what I've followed over the last 10 years, they'd (Congress) do anything ANYTHING to make Obama look bad now....when what they (voters) wanted was what he rode in on?

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I was wondering about that! I remember 1968, I was 9 when I started 5th grade and our teacher had us do a classroom 'presidential campaign'. Of course, we all just used our parents' voting choices for our little projects, but I recall we had to present a campaign brochure/poster or some such thing. All I remember now is I used blue construction paper and was a 'Nixon supporter' because my parents were.

The whole Watergate thing later was very fuzzy for me (my parents did not discuss politics with us kids),
but a few minutes ago I was thinking about the Rep/Dem feud and remembered the Clinton era. It wasn't until I had become a parent that I started paying any real attention to politics...

But maybe yes, that was when the flip occurred....!

I'm younger (born in 1967), so I don't remember Wallace. My formative years were during the Nixon, Ford and Carter eras.

I will add this, I am a totally disabled person with a medical condition, Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. I am confined to a wheelchair now and am prevented from going to work. To be disabled legally in this country means you cannot work 40 hours. After much disagreement and argument, my neurologist informed me that I can no longer work at a job. Prior to this, I was working and paid into the system.

I do receive Social Security Disability, but I could not consciously accept a free Obama phone because it didn't seem right for me to just take something because it is free. I do not receive food stamps, but I don't have children either. I do have Medicare.

I see both sides of the argument because I have been on both sides. But since I have accepted Social Security Disability, there have been many people who have told me how to play the system. I see it every day.

I wish to God that I didn't have to be on Social Security Disability, but if I were able to work, I'd be right back out there. I see people every day who do work for money "under the table" so it doesn't get reported. And I have seen people who get Social Security based on the fact that their father died. You would be astounded at how much these people get, then these are the same people who tell me how to play the system.

I refuse to play the system, because invariably someone like you who needs to work and is looking for work, should not have to pay for someone else who does work "under the table". If you are disabled, then you shouldn't be able to work at anything.

I don't have a free phone, but I do have free internet provided by wifi through the building I live in. But if I could afford it, I would have cable, because I don't have cable. I also don't have a large flat screen TV, like I have seen in the homes of many of those who play the system.

There are things that I simply can't and won't do, so people tell me that I am on the "Republican" side, but I am a registered member of the Constitution Party. The first time I ever voted was for the Constitution Party. Now if there were a way to accommodate my disability and I don't have to compete for a job with able bodied people, then yes, I would be willing to work, as long as the job market is sufficient enough so that people with children won't be out of a job.

I'm willing to work now, and something funny happens every time I go out and see a help wanted sign, I think to go in and apply, and then remind myself that I am in a wheelchair and can't get there every day. So until that day when our society figures out how to have enough jobs for the able bodied, then people like me can go back without having to compete.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I am confined to a wheelchair now and am prevented from going to work. To be disabled legally in this country means you cannot work 40 hours. After much disagreement and argument, my neurologist informed me that I can no longer work at a job. Prior to this, I was working and paid into the system.

I'm very sorry to hear of your malady. It seems MS is becoming more and more a problem...

could you work from home?
I've been looking into those opportunities also; but so far no hits.

I worked for 35 years (plus, if you count paper routes and babysitting and housecleaning for our neighbor lady)....
and paid in the whole time. When I left the workforce, it was to care for my elderly dad. Now hardly anyone will give me an interview! Over 50 = unemployable, it appears.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs

Did you two read the article on raising the minimum wage?

The gentleman stated that all Walmart would have to do to provide a living wage is raise the cost of their products by One Cent, One Time. That's it. Covered.

Of course I read it, a bit closer than you did -- I believe that he said "one percent", not "one cent".

And… yes, that's what it says:

The data by that Berkeley research center you mentioned shows that Wal-Mart, the largest low-wage employer in America, could accommodate the costs of a $12-an-hour minimum wage nationally by simply raising their prices 1 percent one time.

Now, setting aside the political hay that someone would make of that, consider the economics of it -- such an increase would only benefit Walmart employees, so it is pointless unless such an increase was mandated, across the board, for all employers.

What about the consumer? Well, everyone who shops at Walmart has just seen their prices increase by 1%, but unless they work there, they will either need to buy less, or get a 1% pay rise themselves. Let's assume that they do the latter -- now there is more money flowing through the economy, but the same amount of merchandise, because we've boosted wages without a boost to production or anything else, and the result is inflation, so that the buying power of both the Walmart employee and the Walmart shopper are reduced, and suddenly your employee, who you legislated into earning a "living wage" is no longer earning a living wage.

That's what I meant -- when one looks at these issues with a superficial "I demand justice!" view, without understanding the actual economic underpinnings, as politicians do, habitually, invalid conclusions are inevitable.

reply to post by adjensen


Oh wow! Thanks for correcting me!! I could swear I heard one cent....
LOL!!

Okay - now back to your post....

reply to post by adjensen

What about the consumer? Well, everyone who shops at Walmart has just seen their prices increase by 1%, but unless they work there, they will either need to buy less, or get a 1% pay rise themselves.

Okay, yes, I get that part....

our household enjoyed a piddly-assed increase a couple months ago; but our budget as it stands is NOT covering the rising price of food - even my grocer's employees are noticing!!

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I'm a little confused. The media says that it's the impoverished and struggling who are buying the GOP rhetoric and vocally vilifying the government's efforts....
but you've said that those in the South of your family/acquaintance are told to vote Democrat.

This was another confusing thing for me - I thought Obama's victory (if it wasn't rigged to begin with) showed that working people wanted the so-called Hope and Change; but now they are dead-set against the same man??

I really don't understand what's going on with it.
It seems the GOP is indeed stoking the fires, and from what I've followed over the last 10 years, they'd do anything ANYTHING to make Obama look bad, when what they wanted was what he rode in on?

My dad and my grandmother's family have been Democrat forever. My mom's dad's side in the north and farmers were Republican.

It's the media that is feeding distortions of facts. If you listened to the man in every speech, you would have seen the patterns emerge, you were told that if you didn't vote, you were racist. That simply wasn't true. I think the best course of action is not listen to what the media says about anyone, but actually listen to the person.

Obama said that if the coal industry didn't clean up its act, he would bankrupt the coal industry. That in turn would bankrupt the steel industry that manufacturing relies on. Jobs were lost because the United Auto Workers, which unions have historically been Socialist, decided to stay on Obama's side. Then the bailouts of the auto industry came, you were told if you change your clunker you would get a better, newer car along with payments you can't afford.

Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was an Obama supporter and is a Democrat.

Joe Manchin On Obama

We can see it only took 4 years to do it, but Obama went ahead to bankrupt the coal industry.

“The fact is clear: our own Energy Department reports that our country will get 37 percent of our energy from coal until 2040. Removing coal from our energy mix will have disastrous consequences for our recovering economy. These policies punish American businesses by putting them at a competitive disadvantage with our global competitors. And those competitors burn seven-eighths of the world’s coal, and they’re not going to stop using coal any time soon.

Joe Manchin told people to vote Democrat. Working people in the coal, steel and auto industry were told that change is coming. When they saw what the change meant, it cost West Virginians jobs. That press release came from Joe Manchin, against what the media is reporting.

reply to post by WarminIndy


And here I thought this thread might help me understand it better!
Yikes.

Thanks for your insights, to you and adjensen both.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

And here I thought this thread might help me understand it better!
Yikes.

Thanks for your insights, to you and adjensen both.

I think your signature line says it all.

When things are revealed....

Just found another article discussing religious/economic debate:

Some will always have more than others; this is no reason to hate them. When some have more to the exclusion of others having enough, it is a reason to correct that arrangement.

Pause for thought here.

Petty personal malice may be involved on behalf of some, but it’s madness to prefer the moral discipline of those unknown few to the many who would materially benefit from programs that improve the lives of the poor.

And before the conversation dissolves into whether or not the poor in the United States really do need assistance, a recent study shows that rich people in the United States not only live better but longer than their poor counterparts, meaning that poverty itself is anti-life and anti-flourishing.

The claim that anyone who takes exception with this arrangement must just be envious and jealous wrongly situates the rich person as the center of moral concern in the creation of policies for the poor, which they are not: The poor are.

...it is sometimes the case that policies are undertaken with an eye for the least of these, not the greatest.

Religious Fraud: The Super Rich Who Claim Christ But Are Actually Enemies of the Church

Not going to make a new thread, don't want to be flamed and hated.
Just pointing it out.

(My signature was chosen for a reason. )

BuzzyWigs
Just found another article discussing religious/economic debate:

Some will always have more than others; this is no reason to hate them. When some have more to the exclusion of others having enough, it is a reason to correct that arrangement.

Pause for thought here.

Petty personal malice may be involved on behalf of some, but it’s madness to prefer the moral discipline of those unknown few to the many who would materially benefit from programs that improve the lives of the poor.

And before the conversation dissolves into whether or not the poor in the United States really do need assistance, a recent study shows that rich people in the United States not only live better but longer than their poor counterparts, meaning that poverty itself is anti-life and anti-flourishing.

The claim that anyone who takes exception with this arrangement must just be envious and jealous wrongly situates the rich person as the center of moral concern in the creation of policies for the poor, which they are not: The poor are.

...it is sometimes the case that policies are undertaken with an eye for the least of these, not the greatest.

Religious Fraud: The Super Rich Who Claim Christ But Are Actually Enemies of the Church

Not going to make a new thread, don't want to be flamed and hated.
Just pointing it out.

(My signature was chosen for a reason.

)

edit on 3/22/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

Buzzywings

I don't think you are flamed and hated by me or Adjensen, as we don't mind questions brought up in a civil manner, for civil discourse. If you are flamed and hated, it won't be by us. You have every right to your opinions, we can only offer counter-opinions.

I read that article and it was on another thread last winter, by wildtimes, who no longer appears to be posting much any more. I will just say this in reference to Langoine, I am not Catholic. The Catholic issue can't be addressed by me, so I will leave that up to someone who can represent Catholicism better than me.

But as far as Christianity goes, the majority of Christians are not wealthy by any means. There are many Christians who are on government assistance, including welfare and food stamps. So this idea

And before the conversation dissolves into whether or not the poor in the United States really do need assistance, a recent study shows that rich people in the United States not only live better but longer than their poor counterparts, meaning that poverty itself is anti-life and anti-flourishing.

There are poor Christians as well in that mix, and yes, poverty is a terrible thing, but is endemic poverty leading to genocide by the wealthy Christians in America? But there are wealthy atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims in the United States. While the article mentions a Catholic man, it doesn't address any other religious or non-religious group of wealthy people.

Rich people anywhere live better than their poor counterparts. I think it is disingenuous to mention wealthy American Catholics and then not mention other wealthy groups. And certainly not all Catholics think like Langoine. Catholics also build charity hospitals and universities.

A recent study confirms what has been known for a long time?

reply to post by WarminIndy


This article is dated yesterday, (though I'm not surprised that the man's earlier attack on the Pope has been covered already):

March 21, 2014

But, yes, the original Langone rant against the Pope was from a few months ago...I remember it.
this is more of a follow up on it.

I'm not Catholic either, but I think the article is pertinent to this conversation...isn't it?

I'm sorry I didn't mean that you and adjensen are flaming me; but others who have participated in the thread (and from what I've seen in the political fora) might be tempted.

It's just I can't wrap my head around how the GOP works in regards to religion vis a vis economics.


P.S. yep, I know there are mostly generous, kind, thoughtful people in religion everwhere. I'm trying to figure out what those who refuse to acknowledge the need for better quality of life for the have nots are thinking, how they justify that refusal.

Wigs

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

This article is dated yesterday, though:

March 21, 2014

But, yes, the original Langone rant against the Pope was from a few months ago...
this is more of a follow up??

I'm not Catholic either, but I think the article is pertinent to this conversation...isn't it?

I'm sorry I didn't mean that you and adjensen are flaming me; but others who have participated in the thread (and from what I've seen in the political fora) might be tempted.

It's just I can't wrap my head around how the GOP works in regards to religion vis a vis economics.

P.S. yep, I know there are mostly generous, kind, thoughtful people in religion. I'm trying to figure out what those who refuse to acknowledge the need for better quality of life for the have nots are thinking.

edit on 3/22/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/22/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

I don't think it is pertinent because he is Catholic, only from his words to the ruling authorities of the Catholic church, which hasn't endorsed his statements.

If he were poor and Catholic, then he'd be Mother Theresa. I doubt this guy is on any fast track to sainthood. The only issue I had was with not mentioning other religious groups. Well, they are allowed to print what they think is an issue, because they have freedom of speech and the press. So the author is making the statement that wealthy Catholics are enemies of the Church.

Elizabeth Stoker might be Catholic herself and then coming from her own perspective. She also wrote this article

Liberterians's Ethical Gap

She says Langone is "self-described Catholic". I don't know what that means. Is she implying he is not Catholic because he doesn't act like a Catholic, or that he is not Catholic, merely pretending to be Catholic?

reply to post by WarminIndy

But as far as Christianity goes, the majority of Christians are not wealthy by any means. There are many Christians who are on government assistance, including welfare and food stamps.

Yes, I know that. You've explained it very well....

so - how is it that lots of poor Christians as well as rich Christians vote to not contribute more to the well-being of others (vote against social justice and so forth)? I'm thinking at this point it's the media, and it's contrived to keep us all fighting.

Meanwhile- people are dying every day of starvation, exposure, disease - all of which could easily be prevented; except that the concept and intent of having "money" gets in the way.

How did the GOP manage this??

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

But as far as Christianity goes, the majority of Christians are not wealthy by any means. There are many Christians who are on government assistance, including welfare and food stamps.

Yes, I know that. You've explained it very well....

so - how is it that lots of poor Christians as well as rich Christians vote to not contribute more to the well-being of others (vote against social justice and so forth)? I'm thinking at this point it's the media, and it's contrived to keep us all fighting.

Meanwhile- people are dying every day of starvation, exposure, disease - all of which could easily be prevented; except that the concept and intent of having "money" gets in the way.

How did the GOP manage this??

Yes, the media is doing that. But consider what side the media is on. They are biased.

But everyone has to pick and choose what they want to fight against or for. Social justice and social injustice are flipped the other side of the coin. Whatever is a justice to you might be an injustice to another.

Things that are called social injustice are : poverty, gay marriage restrictions, abortion rights. Those are the three biggest in our country right now. So the Christians opposed to poverty are still pariahs because they oppose gay marriage. Those who propose restricting gay marriage also sometimes endorse abortion.

But here is what is funny, those who propose for gay marriage are not necessarily opposing poverty. Those who oppose poverty also think abortion should be legal in all cases. Those who oppose poverty don't necessarily oppose gay marriage.

Evangelicals who oppose gay marriage and abortions aren't opposing because of a social injustice definition. The media tells you it is a social injustice to oppose gay marriage because those who propose gay marriage compare themselves to the disenfranchised impoverished blacks in the Civil Rights Era. Now blacks are saying there is no comparison. To yank something into a definition of social injustice means it is for selfish reasons.

Your views on gay marriage come from your own worldview, the same as the opposition to gay marriage also comes from a worldview. The same goes for abortion. Is it a social injustice to tell young women simply to abstain? No, it is not social injustice, and considering that Planned Parenthood was founded on their basic principles of genocide of blacks, southern poor whites, Jews and other groups, then Planned Parenthood isn't taking responsibility for the first social injustice, but the media tells you that Planned Parenthood cares about the poor.

Margaret Sanger made her views very well-known we she pushed for abortion in the United States, this led to eugenics and genocide. But the media and popular culture says "get an abortion, it's your right", actually given where that arose from, evangelicals are opposed to the genocide and eugenics, that are not addressed within the media's whitewashing of Planned Parenthood. The GOP didn't form Planned Parenthood, as Margaret Sanger was a member of the Communist Party of America.

And another socialist organization, Mother Jones, employed Michael Moore. Mother Jones opposes poverty. Mother Jones is not a Christian Right Wing organization.

So the definitions of what exactly is a social justice or social injustice depends upon the group with the rhetoric.