Is Free Market Capitalism and secular democracy appropriate for a Christian society?
I grew up Protestant, so was obviously taught Jesus loves Capitalism and America, but converting to Catholicism later in life, I've grown skeptical of both.
>>Note: I'm not a leftist
I wonder though, can a Christian, in good conscience, accept a society that's turned pornography into a multi-billion dollar industry?
I've also grown skeptical of separation of Church and state. I think a better scenario would see the Supreme Court replaced by clergy on "moral issues" (defining that wouldn't be particularly simple).
Anyway, what are your thoughts? As a Christian, are you accepting of secular democracy and free trade?
>>66869
Trying to analyze how the the narrative and moral basis of the christian religion (and its proselitysm) is entwined with western culture and policies is an appropriate historical thread.
Asking how society should change to accomodate your world view is a political one.
So, bring this to /pol/
Bump. This is interesting.
>>67023
>>redit
/his/ is a Christian board.
>implying you can have discussions on /pol/
>>66869
I'm not a Christian so I am a big fan of secularism (at least in a light form). I have no interest in being told what to do by clergymen.
This thread seems to belong on /pol/ though because it is about politics.
>>67083
OK, but ultimately we do have people legislating morality. Are you opposed entirely to Christian ethics and morality?
>>67109
>Are you opposed entirely to Christian ethics and morality?
It is not for me. Others can do as they wish.
>>66869
Pure Capitalism is an abomination in the eyes of Christianity, since Capitalism turns people into units of labor
>>67083
Humanities desu senpai baka kek
Oh yeah, of course jesus was a socialist!!! don't you remember that passage of the bible where Jesus and Pontius Pilate redistributed wealth to the poor?
Fucking idiots.
>>66869
>I grew up Protestant, so was obviously taught Jesus loves Capitalism and America
stopped reading there
>>67055
>/his/ is a Christian board.
kek
>>67203
Yes but this topic is specifically political.
>>67273
Religion is involved so go away pls, this thread is fine.
>>67055
>/his/ is a christian board
Even if it was true, it would be irrelevant.
This is an interesting issue, but it's a political one and has nothing to do with /his/
>>66869
I recommend that you delve into Christian Socialism, it might be exactly what you're looking for. Or if that's too much, then Rerum Novarum might be what you like.
Or if you want more extreme, there's always Christian Anarchism.
>>67302 (You)
Racist pic.
>>67302
No because this thread is not explicitly about religion. It is about secularism in modern politics.
Many upvotes for this thread :)
>>67334
no
Go back to /pol/ you fucking worthless scum!!
>>66869
>Is Free Market Capitalism and secular democracy appropriate for a Christian society?
No. If your ideology and government do not match each other, society will continually have identity crises.
>>67180
I agree. We've turned into people who worship the merchant. But, I also think Socialism is awful.
>>67346
Yes. Read the OP. It is not about secularism in general or secularism in history. It is about secularism in modern politics. Therefore it belongs on /pol/ as it is the board for current events.
>>67346
...yes? OP was crystal clear about that
>I think a better scenario would see the Supreme Court replaced by clergy on "moral issues" (defining that wouldn't be particularly simple).
Are you me? I had this same crisis and realized that it makes much more sense for me to be a monarchist. Down with the idols of freedom and choice.
>>67180
What the fuck does socialism turn them into then, you piece of shit? "WAAAH CAPITALISM ASSIGNS VALUE TO PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR LABOR"
SO DOES EVERY FUCKING IDEOLOGY!
>IN COMMUNIST SOCIETIES I WOULD GET TO SLEEP IN
NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!
>>67221
This is not what I'm saying though. I mean, you can have a relatively free market with certain checks and regulations (I have an MS in econ, btw). I don't want to be rude, but I do feel that your sentiment is reflective of contemporary "conservatism." We've been so thoroughly ass-raped by the secular left, that we are lead to believe conservatism has something to do with the regulation of markets.
Look around. Look at the way the system works. It's degrading to the spirit. It's degrading to Christianity.
>>67258
Capitilism works under Calvinist Christianity. In Calvinist Christianity there is no free will so when one man succeeds and another fails it's ok because it was all predestined. It even created the idea that money was a holy thing, if you a rich it is because God predestined you to be wealthy. Clearly you were a good person so God rewarded you, if you are poor than you must have done something terrible to deserve it.
I don't see how you can justify capitalism without Calvin. There's something called Liberation Theory, which is basically a fusion of hard socialism and Christianity (our current Pope is a fan of it). It emphasizes that Jesus's entire minister dealt exclusively with the poor and oppressed, emphasizing them as the highest forms of human beings and the rich and powerful (being the opposite) as the enemies of Christ.
>>67319
It's too cluttered with leftists. I'm extremely socially conservative. I believe Monarchism is most fitting for a Christian society. Or, National Socialism (by that I mean, nationalistic Socialism, not really /pol/ stuff).
>>67488
I guess the closest to this is Rerum Novarum, which is kind of corporative christianity with a social note.
Or yeah monarchism, even though I'm personally against it.
>>67350
Yes, exactly. When America was entirely Christian, it worked. However, as we've become increasingly secular, it seems to be collapsing.
>>67379
>I wonder though, can a Christian, in good conscience, accept a society that's turned pornography into a multi-billion dollar industry?
>>67410
Maybe because I'm a big fan of Monarchism. It sort of happens when you realize the trajectory has not been right-and-up throughout history.
>>66869
no, you are not crazy. usury was in fact banned until the reformation. we are slaves to bankers now. everything has been degraded, art, work, community, even people, by this hysteria for money and its elevation as the sole metric of human value. but it isn't without at least some perks. it certainly beats communism/socialism.
>>67473
Yes, this (extremely silly) mode of thought was important in the development of the US.
>>67540
>I've also grown skeptical of separation of Church and state. I think a better scenario would see the Supreme Court replaced by clergy on "moral issues" (defining that wouldn't be particularly simple).
>I wonder though, can a Christian, in good conscience, accept a society that's turned pornography into a multi-billion dollar industry?
Both of these are current affairs.
>>67580
>usury was in fact banned until the reformation.
You can, more or less, blame every problem of the west on protties.
How did this happen, and how was it/is it still accepted?
>everything has been degraded, art, work, community
Agreed. The humanities are almost entirely dead. Who was the last great author? Can you name one of the last 50 years? Even post-modernism, which is abhorrent shit, is dated.
>>67585
>in good conscience
It's a question of Christian ethics.
>>67759
>It's a question of Christian ethics.
Christian ethics in current affairs.
Definitely not. In the beginning Christianity was so immensely popular among the poor people of the Ancient world, christian communities were set up dedicated to christian charity and morality Now that has all been completely corrupted in favour of moral degeneracy, greed and all of that.
>>67428
> It's degrading to Christianity.
Good. You all shouldn't have this much power anyway. You can't be free, and have a religious nation. You can't have both because no religion is peaceful.
>>67964
Typical christian answer.
Thank you for helping me renew my opposition to your rule.
>Christianity
*claims that there is only correct way of conduct
*group comes before the individual, if individualism is even allowed at all
*pity and charity for the losers
>Capitalism
*Only workable with a strong sense of individualism, the individual creates his own path
*Individual before the group.
*Losers are cut from the system.
>>67759
>It's a question of Christian ethics
Then, if you don't want to consider it political, it's philosophical, this is not the correct board for this.
However, since this is still an interesting topic, i'm under the impression that your main issue lies with industrialization rather than capitalism (Of course, it's not that easy to separate the two things), since it's during that period that we saw the great shift from "to be" towards "to have", and further proof of this can be seen by the interactions with other nations during the colonial eras, and the aftermaths of those interactions. A blatant example of this can be found by observing the fall of the Chinese empire and the rise of modern China: Mao considered Confucian (and Taoist) ethics and morals to be inherently incompatible with the kind of mindset that a person living in an industrial nation would need. In order to make mass production appear as something that a person would deem as "necessary", the thought that happines and self-fullfillment can be merely found in moderation, harmony, and mutual respect must be reconsidered. This is easily one of the reasons why communist states enforced state atheism.
Then, you can simply change the nominal scope of said industrialization ("You need a more powerful car vs Your nation should be stronger!), but its effects on the mindset of the people are remarkably similar
Video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOrLISCV_Hg
>>68025
As was your comment a typical secularist answer. Tell me, what are these tenets of "freedom" and how have they benefitted society? All I see is our Children turning into demisexual otherkin furries.
>>68049
hmmm. I think this is a little inaccurate. Christianity is more individualistic than other religions. In particular, it's utter lack of political guidance.
>>68243
>Then, if you don't want to consider it political, it's philosophical, this is not the correct board for this.
It is definitely philosophical. There's no board for philo, or I would go there.
>However, since this is still an interesting topic, i'm under the impression that your main issue lies with industrialization rather than capitalism
See, I don't think that you can separate the two. I do, very much, believe in Capitalism. As in, if your goal is cheap prices and efficient markets, it's the best system. I don't think you could organize a free market society that didn't eventually become industrial. Capitalism breeds innovation. My issue is simply with unchecked Capitalism, or the idea that our only goal SHOULD be efficient markets. Do you get what I'm saying? I don't question the economic merits of Capitalism, but it's effect on society. I think we're better off sacrificing cheap labor and prices, if it means a stable Christian society in return.
>Mao considered Confucian (and Taoist) ethics and morals to be inherently incompatible with the kind of mindset that a person living in an industrial nation would need. In order to make mass production appear as something that a person would deem as "necessary", the thought that happines and self-fullfillment can be merely found in moderation, harmony, and mutual respect must be reconsidered.
I did not know this. This is interesting.
>>69026
Christianity is arguably the least individualistic religion ever made. It's only competitor is Islam.
An absolute set of conduct that must be followed or face hellfire. Depending on the sect you join, the dogma may cover every single aspect of your life: what you do in the bedroom, what you are allowed to eat, even what you are allowed to THINK. There are actually interpretions of Christianity that have thought-crime! Yes, thought-crime!
Even something as highly as organized and structured as Confusionism does not seek to produce such cook-cutter followers. And that's to say nothing of religions that ENCOURAGE indivualism like Taoism
>>69179
>Christianity is arguably the least individualistic religion ever made. It's only competitor is Islam.
I don't think this can be defended. Islam literally has laws on how you can eat, dress, pray, tax. It's literally a system of government. Judaism, is very similar.
Christianity, on the other hand, is a generally spiritual religion. Which is why it's existed in monarchies, fascist states, democracies, republics, etc.
>what you do in the bedroom
As it should. We're dealing with religion. It should dictate morality.
> even what you are allowed to THINK
Lust is a sin, anon.
>>69253
>I don't think this can be defended. Islam literally has laws on how you can eat, dress, pray, tax. It's literally a system of government. Judaism, is very similar.
You really don't know shit about Christianity do you. You can find the same strict diet restrictions in Christianity depending on the sect, the 7th day advents for instance will not let you eat pork. The bann on alcahol in the 1930s of America was caused entirely by Christians.
And as for controlling government. Have you heard of the divine right of kings? Or the literally anything the Catholics did in the middle ages? Given appropriate power Christianity creates a tyranny that rivals or surpasses that of Islam. It is only now the present, when secular law stands above religious law that such a thing does not happen. You can still see the drive for total government control every now and again from bible belters.
>As it should. We're dealing with religion. It should dictate morality.
Again, confirmed you know nothing about religion. There are more religions in the world than the Abrahamic ones. There is no moral faggotry in Taosim, it's an approach to life. Confusionism deals with social relationships. Hinduism may or may not be moralizing depending on the branch. Shintoism and other native religions likewise are weak on morals.
The freedom to decide one's own morals is essential for an individualistic approach to life and religion. Christianity does not provide this. The man that straws too far from the cookie-cutter lifestyle is a sinner. Overwhelming Christianity has shown that the more power it gets the more freedoms it wants to crush. The 1st amendment was a radical idea compared to the theocratic laws of Europe.
>>69485
>19th century bastardizations
Well, ok, anon. But, they're still moral interpretations. Not explicit laws outlined in the holy text (unlike Islam and Judaism).
>Given appropriate power Christianity creates a tyranny that rivals or surpasses that of Islam.
Given appropriate power anything creates a tyranny that rivals or surpasses that of Islam.
>There is no moral faggotry in Taosim, it's an approach to life.
>approach to life
>Doesn't help you answer difficult questions
>Overwhelming Christianity has shown that the more power it gets the more freedoms it wants to crush.
I think this is a silly conflation of authoritarian rule and Christianity. Look at secular authoritarian rule. Was it any less brutal? Look at explicitly atheist authoritarian rule. It was, perhaps, the most oppressive.
>The 1st amendment was a radical idea compared to the theocratic laws of Europe.
Agreed. As was marxism to capitalism. Both interesting, but ultimately futile.
>>69611
>Agreed. As was marxism to capitalism. Both interesting, but ultimately futile.
Considering that America and France's democracy are the model the whole world is following, it's more appropriate to say democracy has succeeded wear God failed. You'd have to travel to North Korea to find a place where individualism and liberty are not supreme values. You can talk about religion in this or that but their days of governing the world are over.
>Well, ok, anon. But, they're still moral interpretations. Not explicit laws outlined in the holy text (unlike Islam and Judaism).
Trust me, there was PLENTY of holy text justifying all the crap that the Catholics did as the rulers of Europe. You don't exactly have the Pope bossing around kings for a few centuries without explaining why God allows him to do so.
>Given appropriate power anything creates a tyranny that rivals or surpasses that of Islam.
No, Christian and Islam are uniquely greedy in this regard. You never had the same level of theocratic control from Hinduism, Taoism, or Buddhism.
Christianity and Islam want to claim absolute morality on EVERYTHING, including what you are allowed to think (as yourself said, thinking certain things is a sin!). This is North Korea-tier. Because they demand complete control in every single aspect of every single person's life, given the opportunity they will destroy every alternative form of thinking. Individualism is the absolute biggest threat.
It is only today, when the religions are under the foot of higher laws that they behave themself. So, No, Christianity and Islam are the least individualistic religions ever made. It's very difficult for them to stay relevant in a Capitalist world that values individual freedoms and liberty above dogmatic conformism. Certain Protestant theology has managed to bridge the gap though and co-exist. For example Kierkegaard's existentialism does so beautifully.
>>69179
>There are actually interpretions of Christianity that have thought-crime! Yes, thought-crime!
Christianity deals with moral absolutes, and a God whose moral standard is literal perfection.
The ability to conceal your blackest thoughts and desires behind a well practiced mask may fool other people but God sees right through it. Would you honestly expect God to allow people to have access to eternal life when they harbor secret desires to rape or murder their fellow man?
>>66869
>that quote
Napoleon never said that btw.
>>70125
While there are hardcore Buddihists that beleive in deep mental control they never exstend it to other people.
The Buddihist may seek complete mental restructring but he isn't going to force it on his neighbor. The evanglical nature of Christianity makes it downright HATEFUL of anyone with a contrary view point. It justifies this hatred...for anything other than itself. By saying you are acting in the interest of sending them to heaven.
I want to masterbate to yuri. The Christian doesn't and he is going to make deal out of my yuri. This a type of thinking that is simple anti-Capilitistic and anti-Freedom.
How is the Yuri vendor going to make money if he and myself cannot freely buy and sell our goods? How can I have freedom for the "pursuit of happiness" if I cannot even masturbate in the privacy of my own room?
>>70314
>The Buddihist may seek complete mental restructuring but he isn't going to force it on his neighbor.
And if a Christian is actually acting Christ-like, he isn't going to force you to either.
However the Buddhist does not have a burden on his conscience like the Christian. The Christian sees your behavior and recognises that it is self destructive, that you are forfeiting the chance to have a personal, eternal relationship with God.
The fault is not with the evangelical nature of Christianity, the fault is with evangelical Christians who fundamentally misunderstand the teachings of Christ. Generally speaking Christ's threats of damnation were reserved for the corrupt religious elite, but when it came to reaching the common man Christ acted with patience, mercy and most of all compassion.
Today an evangelical street preacher would rather stand on the corner yelling about the lake of fire and damnation through a megaphone, rather than actually connecting with people and explaining to them why God wants them to change their ways.
This is why I hate this board.
This utter retardation.
Look at this faggot. Look at OP. He posted an obviously political question to a historical board for no fucking reason at all. It's not even tangentially related to history. This immense and colossal chucklefuck of a phallus thought this was just /int/ and /pol/'s playground. Fuck you. This is for history, not some autist's idea of political discourse.
>>66869
>Is Free Market Capitalism and secular democracy appropriate for a Christian society?
Clearly not.
If the people who say they are Christians actually behaved like Christ, they would be ascetics and live in monasteries and caves.
>>71304
This is why we dislike you, for the record.
>If the people who say they are Christians actually behaved like Christ, they would be ascetics and live in monasteries and caves.
Well, we do have people doing that. Still, I don't think this is necessary for a Christian life.
>>71386
>Still, I don't think this is necessary for a Christian life.
Jesus is pretty clear in saying that everything in life that makes you value this world more than the next is worthless, and you should only follow him. No thrift, abandon your family etc.
>>66869
Reminder that Napoleon was probably not a Christian, and idolised Mohammed (as he should have done, considering).
>>72117
What about that was political?
Aside from the post it was replying to.
>>72176
>/pol/ is for politics
/pol/ is for worshiping Hitler and Nazism.
>>72205
...It isn't, but going by *that* logic too, what about the post made it belong in /pol/?
>>66869
I see no inherent conflict. On the contrary. If you preserve the sanctity of life and property, the natural result is the so-called capitalism. Christianity has this predisposition, although it has not always manifested it.
Democracy is something else. Unlike capitalism, it is not necessary or critical to any society. It is compatible with Christianity? Most likely. It's essential? No.
>>66869
>Is Free Market Capitalism and secular democracy appropriate for a Christian society?
Lel of course not.
>>67473
It's like they somehow missed the book of Job
>>67759
>Can you name one of the last 50 years
Tolkien.
Please let it actually be <50 years though
