An Attempt at a Reply to a Comment
Joshua said in reply to Alicia’s post after the Obama speech to Congress:
In the Magnificat, what do you make of Jesus filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich away empty?Joshua
Here’s my attempt at sketching an answer. I think it’s a good question by the way.
Joshua,
Fair question. I would take a stab at it by pointing out the context. Who were the rich of Jesus day? Among others they were the Pharisees and Saducces the of the Sanhedrin; people who had become rich largely by selling the interests of the people they were supposed to teach and lead for political gain and pride of place in society.
The Bible certainly doesn’t uniformly treat the rich as those God sends empty away. Solomon and David were rich, The centurion who converted was almost certainly rich as was the one whose servant Jesus healed from a distance. Almost all the patriarchs were rich. The tax collectors and many of the sinners Jesus ate with were rich. On the other hand there’s the rich man and Lazarus which certainly presents a grim picture of one who is defined by his wealth. It seems that the Bible is much more concerned about God’s wrath against those who have become rich by crushing and oppressing the poor than those who are rich per se, even if this is left only implicit in places like the Magnificat.
Now to contemporary America. Certainly there are those who have become rich by being reckless with other people’s investments. Certainly profiteering and corruption are serious issues in our country (not least among politicians themselves; hence the dilbert cartoon).
However, what I heard in the Obama speech and what I think Alicia is reacting to are: a) the simplistic and manipulative pitting of ‘us’ against ‘them’ that seems to encourage a kind of class warfare mentality. Obama and others continue to refer broadly to Wall Street execs and CEO’s as if they are the only greedy people in society and universally so, and as if they have, en masse, done nothing to earn their positions or their compensation. b) The use of these ideas to support an economic and political philosophy that is dangerously at odds with a system that allows for meaningful private ownership and the ability to accrue and/or dispose of material goods in ways that individuals and private organizations see fit.
In other words it is very easy to start by saying, ‘oh these rich people, they’re the problem. No one needs to make that kind of money. We need to cap their salaries or tax them more heavily so that we can increase the size of the middle class or spread the burden of healthcare or whatever.’ This appeals to the envy that is within our hearts and uses the envy of the vast majority against an easily dislikable - under the influence of envy and by reasoning from the few to the many, i.e. prejudice - minority. This is wicked though.
Further, if you will excuse a slippery slope argument, it make it that much easier for the government to encroach further. By accepting this approach with regard to the rich, we have already agreed that all wealth is fundamentally at the government’s disposal and it is only their benevolence and judgment that allows us to use it. If they determine that we don’t need a certain amount, or that someone else needs it more what’s to keep them from taking it? We cheered when they did it to the wealthiest 5%.
based on what people said were their favorites. 