Religious right wing voters that constitute a majority of modern Republican votes are in no way to be associated with the economic philosophy of free market capitalism, traditionally supported by fiscal conservatives of Republicanism's past. Fiscal conservativism is historically linked with limited government as well. Today, and for many decades, popular politics as presented by the media has centered around social issues. Rather than discuss the differing political and economic ideologies, only social matters are emphasized. This enables the established parties, the Republicrats, to aid the plague that has replaced our Republic with a Corporatocracy. Both modern Republicans and Democrats are fiscally and politically liberal, they want more government and more government spending. If Jesus were real, which do you think he would support: Free market capitalism or coercive state sanctioned robbery known as socialism/communism/fascism?
Jesus wouldn't concern himself with politics. "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's." "Do not resist the authorities." But if you apply the Golden Rule to politics, laissesz-faire would be the dominant political ideology and real fiscal conservative would be unquestioned. None of this fiat currency bullshit we've got in this world. But it really seems that you, OP, don't get what religion and religious issues are all about... as long as Jesus is a factor, he's doing his job.
I didn't really mean to offend anyone, a few beers had me posting a lot of dumb shit last night, haha.
The one where the wealth is distributed a bit more evenly so everyone has an enjoyable life and people don't starve! /end ideology
Data Point #1: In all of the New Testament, there is only one instance of Jesus getting angry... and it wasn't when he was being tortured and crucified. It was when he drove the money-changers out of the temple. Data Point #2: If collect all of Jesus' actual words in the Gospels, the subject that he spoke of most often and most consistently was caring for the poor. You may draw your own conclusions.
And how do you come to the conclusion that Jesus would advocate stealing from others to give to the poor? "You shall not steal." You should give to the poor out of your own generosity... but you have no right to steal from others no matter how noble your cause. You're thinking of Robin Hood not Jesus.
I have been through Atlas Shrugged more than once (as I'm willing to bet you have). I understand the Robin Hood metaphor but ultimately don't find it persuasive. All but the most doctrinaire libertarians accept that there need to be trade-offs between an individual's right to self-determination on the one hand and society/government's imperative to provide for a greater good and to help those who cannot help themselves. The fact that we're both on this particular forum gives us a vested interest in the former value. I understand and respect where you're coming from but, for both moral and utilitarian reasons, I choose to draw the line differently than you do. Getting back to Jesus, he implicitly acknowledged the right of a government to tax its citizens when he said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." (At least, that's what they taught us back in Catholic school.)
I'll take that bet as I had never heard of Atlas Shrugged before this thread, haha. This is where issues like how government is financed and States Rights' come into play. If we converted to the "FairTax" system, at least no tax money would be coercive. If we didn't have an income tax Americans keep 15-35% more of their paychecks and would probably get a raise as their employers wouldn't have to match the taxes for their employees then people would save more money to collect interest, then there would be more wealth to be donated to charity rather than stolen to be used to fund inefficient insoluble federal programs that will never solve economic disparities (especially since said disparities are engineered by fiat currency practices.) If States weren't forced to enforce federal government programs, they would have a better ability to decide what public regarding fiscal policies they need based on their local economies and political philosophies. No one in Washington DC has the ability to create broad policies that can work efficiently for a nation of 300 million people. They're trying to pull off the impossible and their inefficiency gives testament to that fact. Well, I don't doubt for a second that that's exactly what your teachers told you Jesus meant by that. It's a sensible but apologetic interpretation. But like all of Jesus' teachings, it's metaphorical and open to many interpretations. It could mean to not concern yourself with such worldly issues, as I implied earlier. Seeing as how he said to give a man your cloak if he steals your tunic, it could mean that when someone comes to rob you, do not resist them. Seeing as how he says it is very difficult for a rich man to make it into heaven, he could be saying give it all to Ceasar... he said give it all to the poor. It could go along with when he overturned the money-changers' tables in the Temple because they serve no purpose regarding the glory of God. Also, it could mean to have no love or attachment to money as "The love of money is the root of all evil" and "You cannot serve two masters. You cannot love both the Lord and money." But I highly doubt it means he condones such actions of the tax collectors.. and most certainly doesn't mean he promotes taxation/robbery.
