Cato/WSJ: Obama, McCain "Collectivist"

I guess I do, Tom, since I am a sponsor of the Cato Institute and I have a Cato Institute polo shirt that I wear.

 

I watched the speech as it is being replayed over and over again on our wonderful 24 hour news cycles. And to be fair to Obama he is being misquoted on this. What is not being included in the different rehashes of his speech is that he suggested that the college students should not "only" pursue wealth. The context of what he said was to "also" seek to give to others in need.

 

Wait a minute! Pastor Mitchell taking up for Senator Obama????

I think I am going to faint.

 

Not really. The lousy speech still has a socialist tone. That s problem enough. I just did not find anything hypocritical about his view in this speech. And the attempts to paint it this way are suspicious.

 

For many people, pursuit of their own happiness is indeed a self-indulgence. And many people do indeed pursue a highly materialist lifestyle that departs from the kingdom way that Jesus promotes. Let me be clear - there is nothing wrong in principle with seeking prosperity. The problem arises when we seek our own prosperity at the expense of caring for the least of these. Many people in the world are poor and needy through no fault of their own. And in some instances, our pursuit of the good life actually contributes the misery of others.

We need to ensure all God's children are cared for. Once we have done all we can do in that respect, then we can turn to the pursuit of prosperity.

 

Another excellent article from Boaz.

 

Sounds like wishful thinking and unscriptural to boot.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."

Now indeed one can pursue money for the higher purposes of the kingdom, but this is not what the above quote implies. As worded, it suggests that one's pursuit of money might be used by God for the kingdom, even if that is not one's goal, your real goal being "your bliss" And indeed it might.

But it is still a disobedient position to take - to "chase after the almighty dollar". Just because God might use one's disobedience to achieve good doesn't make it right.

Making money to build the kingdom is honourable. But let's not play the game of getting into bed with the world on the materialism front in the hope that the "invisible hand of God will turn it to good".

Perhaps we see the above quoted statement as saying different things. So perhaps we are arguing different points. If your position is not what I have characterised it as, please do not take my counter-argument as a "shot".

 

Andre, I believe economic incentive spurs economic growth and I think that was what Boaz was getting at. His reference to the dollar's being "almighty" was, I suspect, a cheeky poke at Obama's implication that "big" houses and "nice" suits are somehow more suspect that just "regular" houses and suits. That being said, I agree with Boaz that if a person wishes to be greedy (unethical as it may be) that should be his right to exercise so long as it entails the sole use of private property.

 

I dont know how in the world Christian Communists think we can avoid wealth and be forced to pay all the taxes necessary to save the world.

 

FWIW, I agree with this.

 

Probably because that's what their "leaders" keep telling em.