Jesus Was Absolutely In Line With The Goals Of Socialism And Not Those Of The Framers Of The Constitution - Hate Mail

THERE IS NO DOUBTING that the economics of Jesus are extremely radical and anti-capitalist.  That is there is no honestly doubting it.  For a start he goes the Mosaic ban on usury one step better and tells People that if they have money they are to give it away to those they don't expect to pay it back.   Since I've only got a little time to deal with this, I'll concentrate on Luke this morning.   Here's what he says in Luke 6:34-35.

34 If you lend money only to someone you think will pay you back, will God be pleased with you for that? Even sinners lend to sinners because they think they will get it all back.

35  But love your enemies and be good to them. Lend without expecting to be paid back.  Then you will get a great reward, and you will be the true children of God in heaven. He is good even to people who are unthankful and cruel. 36 Have pity on others, just as your Father has pity on you.

Capitalism would be impossible, as would, by the way, banking and insurance and other industries based on the lending of money with interest if the U.S. law were "based in the bible"  only it's when that claim would NOT be in line with the Gospel of Jesus that those who love to tell that lie are in favor of their version of scripture being claimed that way.   And as I said, Jesus' are an intensification of the Law of Moses. 

In Luke Timothy Johnson's surprisingly useful book  The New Testament: A Very Short Introduction  (which I'm going through as a self-designed short course) he condenses a lot of the evidence to support my title in some very short paragraphs.  

Jesus appears as a prophet-Messiah at the start of his ministry.  Luke moves a story about Jesus visiting his home town from its original place in Mark 6:1-6) and makes it a formal inaugural moment in Jesus' ministry (Lk 4:16-29).  Himself full of the Holy Spirit (3:22, 4:1, 14) Jesus reads in his hometown synagogue the words of Isaiah (61:1-2, 58:6), and declares them to be fulfilled in him (4:21).  The Spirit of the Lord is upon him, and he is the anointed one, who has been sent out to bring good news to the poor, liberty to captives, sight to the blind, and freedom for the oppressed (Lk 4:14-19).  The rejection of his townspeople foreshadow the opposition this prophetic messiah will experience 4:28-30).  He will be a sign of contradiction, as Simeon declared of him when he was an infant, "for the fall and rise of many in Israel." (2:34). 

I will begin by noting that the Common English Version translation of the sentence of Simeon translates what most versions put a different way as a "warning."   I think that's a useful way to put it if you understand that any significant warning will meet with opposition argument and contradiction.  I think we professed Christians would do well to take his words as warnings, he was a prophet and more. 

The program of the Republican Party in the United States could not be more in opposition to the words of Jesus,  "good news for the poor," all the Republicans have is hatred of the poor and destitute, lying about them and advocating they live and die in abject misery.  Capitalism's attitude towards them, ESPECIALLY IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRIES, was best put by Charles Dickens in his most known but also most superficially read book:

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides—excuse me—I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

I will forego the temptation to point to the Malthusian reference to that, the fact that it is exactly what the New Poor Law made the law of Britain and the fact that Charles Darwin's natural selection is an intensification of Malthus which ALWAYS leads to death through eugenics.   Though it's one of my major themes here. 

The policy of American conservatives,  Republicans, capitalism is the policy of Scrooge before his unlikely and miraculous conversion.   And that's only their policy towards Poor Whites, their policy toward People of Color is that of the KKK, as the ICESTAPO murders this week alone prove.  Those were in line with the New Taney Court's Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo decision in which the "color blind"  John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett et al gave the police the power to target People, even those who they had no warrent for as the one in Biddeford, Maine yesterday ON THE BASIS OF THEIR COLOR.  

As an aside, Susan Collins, the patented "moderate Republican" said that she didn't make a mistake in voting to confirm its author, the sex criminal and, clearly, racist Brett Kavanaugh, which should be an issue in the coming election.   She supports the legal decision that is the basis of the police murder in her constituency yesterday.   And she's a "moderate Republican." 

I could go through the entire New Testament and over and over again compare the words of Jesus to the policies, whether explicit or on a de facto basis of Republicans, conservatives and capitalism.   I will note that any and all forms of secular socialism fall short of the radical economics of Jesus but I don't have much time this morning,  I've got to get some work done before the global warming heat sets in.   Yet another thing brought to us as a "good" of Republicans and capitalists and a lot of the communists, these days, are full fledged capitalists.   Though they're somewhat less inclined to be slaves to the extraction industries than those conservatives under "classical economics" and capitalism.  Capitalism is pretty much a guarantee of not only corrupt government but stupid and irrationally selfish government, as well. 

I would welcome any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, practitioners of Vodun or any of the other religions to lay out their own scripture or prophecy or tradition that supports the same points.   I think any legitimate religion will have the same content.  I will say that may Muslims have far more extensively made the scriptural ban on usury part of their civil law than those in the West have from the start of early modernism when Calvin, especially, put that aside in favor of capitalism. 

In secular governance in a pluralistic egalitarian democracy,  we need a generally religious socialism if not something more radical that needs a new name.