did you hear that yesterday Obama is going to expand Bush's Faith-Based Inititative?
i'd be interested in your thoughts...not sure what interests rates on houses have to do with our Catholic faith?
It sound like perhaps Obama's copy of the Social Gospel is shelved next to an undiscussed but often read copy of the Prosperity Gospel.
a look at their tax plans tell you all you need to know about prosperity as it relates to our faith.
Obama- taxes for the rich; a big tax cut for middle class hardworking families and the poor
McCain- modest tax cut for the poor and middle class hardworking families; large tax cuts for the rich
which approach would Jesus prefer?
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/
U...ateTaxPlans.pdf
Anon,
Given that the top 20% of tax payers already pay the vast majority of taxes -- their ownly difference is in whether they should give everyone a tax break (McCain) or play Robin Hood (Obama).
Frankly, I don't think Jesus would have an opinion. His advice to the lower middle class of his time was: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. In other words, Money is of the world. If the world wants to tax it, it's not the worse thing that can happen to you.
First- and second-century Roman observers often admired two traits among Christians: They paid their taxes and they cared for the poor. And lest there be any confusion, taxation and benevolence toward the poor were two distinct categories in the Roman Empire.
Tax revenue was used to benefit the Roman Empire-it was never intended to benefit the poor. Subjugated peoples may have seen some of their taxes returned to them through the building of roads, aqueducts, temples, and municipal buildings, but Rome offered its subjects no relief from poverty.
Despite the Romans' self-serving system of taxation, Jesus was said to have both paid his personal taxes and commanded his followers to do the same. They were to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." The Apostle Paul similarly exhorted Christians to "pay your taxes."
But while Christians paid Roman taxes, they rejected the Romans' disregard for the poor. Jesus blessed the poor and even told his disciples that clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and showing kindness to "the least of these my brothers" was tantamount to clothing, feeding, and serving Jesus himself.
Such regard for the poor was almost certainly a product of Jesus' Jewish heritage. Whereas Roman taxation further concentrated wealth in the hands of the ruling elite, the Jewish traditions of tithing, almsgiving, and "jubilee" were designed to redistribute wealth to the poor. In the eighth century BC, Israel's earliest writing prophets had interpreted Assyria's conquest of the Holy Land as God's judgment upon Israel for its lack of concern for the poor. In the wake of this prophetic indictment, Jewish tradition developed legal traditions for redistributing wealth. The Torah required Israel give her tithes to the poor every third year and declared every fiftieth year a jubilee year in which all debts were forgiven.
Jesus and many early Christians apparently shared the Jewish tradition's desire to see resources transferred from the rich to the poor. Jesus even commanded one rich man to donate all his possessions to the poor, and the book of Acts tells us that radical redistribution of wealth did occur within early Christianity as implied in the passage: "as many as had possessions or property sold them and donated the proceeds to the poor."
While complete divestment of resources was rare among early Christians (even in Acts), care for the poor remained the norm. At the Apostle Paul's urging, Christians in Corinth set aside weekly offerings for the poor. Other New Testament communities maintained lists of poor widows who could expect financial assistance from the church. The New Testament book of James, traditionally ascribed to the brother of Jesus, even insists that "this is pure and undefiled religion, to visit orphans and widows in their distress."
Because of the New Testament's moral imperative to care for poor, almsgiving became a significant virtue for second- and third-century Christians. Only with the "Christianization" of the Roman Empire under Constantine were the concepts of taxation and care for the poor united-for better or worse.
-Thomas Phillip
playing "Robin Hood" therefore is the the most Christian approach to taxes we should follow.
"playing "Robin Hood" therefore is the the most Christian approach to taxes we should follow."
I missed the Gospel passage where Christ said "Render unto Caesar you rich so that Caesar may succor the poor."
I believe the Gospels are quite clear that it is our individual duty to take care of the poor.
Additionally I have never read any Roman non-Christian commentators of the first and the second century admiring the Christians for paying their taxes. Usually the Christians were condemned harshly for belong to a "superstitious" sect. Tacitus was pretty typical: "
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called 'Chrestians' by the populace.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
Anonymous, if you could you could link to any first or second century non-Christian sources that praised the Christians for paying taxes, I would very much like to read them. Christian commentators of the time period usually emphasized how law-abiding they were, including in the payment of taxes, but I do not recall non-Christians of the time echoing these statements.
One comment asked what interest rates have to do with our Catholic faith. I think they have a lot to do with our Catholic approach to this election. First, cronyism and special favors like sweet heart deals on buying a lavish mansion contradict the Catholic emphasis on politics as pursuit of the common good. Second, deceiving the poor with failed urban policy contradicts the Catholic commitment to effective social justice and to the preferential option for the poor. The same holds for Obama's opposition to school vouchers for the poor. Yes, the abortion issue and the marriage issue are fundamental to Catholic voting in this election. But there are also other important "Catholic" issues where Obama falls short: character, integrity, effective social policy to empower the power, not to mention his naive approach to dictators abroad. For Catholics, national security is a prime responsibility of those who govern. Thus, Obama's lack of prudent judgment on national security is another reason Catholics should vote McCain.
i'm not so sure that national security is at the top of the minds of Catholics and the rest of America. i know the Right will always remind us that there are people out there just waiting to kill us. However, with rising gas prices, a falling dollar, inflation, job loss, high healthcare prices etc. its going to be hard to worry about threats abroad when our own pocketbooks are well being are under attack.
Economic concerns and national security concerns are intertwined in our time. For example, the Gulf States are taking quite seriously the recent threat of Iran to close the straits of Hormuz.
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog...nal/en/
8267.htm
If Iran carries through with the threat gas prices go through the roof. I think that will be some concern to the average voter.
Correction to my previous comment: I should have referred to Obama's refusal to "empower the poor." I mistakenly wrote "to empower the power"--well, power is already empowered!
Commenting by HaloScan
