In Theory: The role of religion and morality in the economy

In the recent Democratic presidential candidate debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., who calls himself a democratic socialist, explained what that socioeconomic worldview means to him. In short, Sanders wants to fix a “rigged economy” where a fraction of the top one percent of America’s wealthy “own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.”

“What democratic socialism means to me,” Sanders said during a speech in New Hampshire, “is having a government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people, which is most often the case right now in this country.”

Sander’s America would see universal healthcare, paid leave for families who have a child and a $15 minimum wage, among other things.

Sanders’ frequent and unapologetic use of the term “socialism” has not gone unnoticed by presidential hopefuls on the other side of the aisle. Presidential candidate Rand Paul said in a recent radio interview that socialism has historically led to mass genocide.

“It amazes me, and it actually kind of scares me. I’ve been making and spending more time going after Bernie [Sanders] and socialism because I don’t want America to succumb to the notion that there’s anything good about socialism,” Paul said. “I think it’s not an accident of history that most of the time when socialism has been tried, that attendant with that has been mass genocide of people or any of those who object to it.”

Going back through history, we see different political and economic world views using morality and religion to justify themselves while demonizing other systems.

Even recently, Pope Francis spoke out against global capitalism, saying the excesses it can produce are the “dung of the devil.” He even called it a “subtle dictatorship” that “condemns and enslaves men and women.”

Q: What do religion and/or morality have to offer to guide our nation’s socioeconomic status? Does morality steer more toward capitalism or democratic socialism?

--

The Bible has much wisdom to offer our nation regarding the attainment, use and distribution of wealth in both personal and corporate manners.

One of the most fundamental principles to understand comes from Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.”

God made the world and He still owns it. We are stewards of what is in our possession and we are responsible to do with it what glorifies Him. This is the surest way to obtain true blessings from what we possess.

Violation of this principle is the surest way to ensure we that will not be blessed. Another important principle is expressed from the negative and the positive sides in two different Scriptures.

“If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” says 2 Thessalonians 3:10. “The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops” says 2 Timothy 2:6. Laziness in work should not be rewarded and diligence should be.

Another principle comes from the admonition of Peter to Ananias. He and his wife had lied about the amount of a charitable gift they had given out of the proceeds from the sale of property they had owned. Peter stated: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” (Acts 5:4).

The principle is the right to private ownership. We are the exclusive owners (or better, stewards) of our possessions. No government or individual has the right to take our possessions from us. Yes, we should pay our taxes (see Romans 13:6), but the redistribution of wealth by forcefully taking from one group to give to another is wrong.

While there remain many other principles we could share, we conclude with one more: We should help and give to others with the motivation of love and genuine concern for them, not out of pride or naive pity or party politics. “If I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3).

This kind of love ultimately has only one source: God. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God” (1 John 4:7). Seems like that’s the one most important thing any nation could do for the welfare of its people.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

--

One problem with any “ism”, whether it’s capitalism or democratic socialism, is that there is no perfect “ism,” no perfect system. And for you nonbelievers who might be reading this, there is no perfect religion, either, and I include my own “ism,” Christianityism!

But back to capitalism and socialism ... as one born in America and so “brainwashed” from kindergarten about how good capitalism is, I tend to think that capitalism is better than any other kind of “ism,” including communism and Nazism. But have you noticed? There are a heck of a lot of homeless and hungry out there in this “land of the free, home of the brave,” and what that says to me is that capitalism, for all its good qualities, is not perfect. By the way, I kind of like Bernie Sanders, because he on the left is sort of shaking things up the same as Donald Trump is on the right. And, for the record, Bernie doesn’t scare me, but the Donald certainly does!

So what can religion and/or morality bring to the debate? Quite a lot, actually. We need to do what is right. And something else I learned in grade school: We believe right is might, whereas Hitler and Stalin and others believed that might is right.

OK, so maybe I’m being a little too simple-minded — but we Americans do like what is fair, whether we are religious or not. And if we’re the greatest thing since sliced bread, the greatest country the world has ever known, a city set on a hill, to quote Ronald Reagan quoting the Bible, we’ll dig down into our better nature and do what is right for all, regardless of whatever “ism” it is.

Let’s see: something else keeps going through my mind: “With liberty and justice for all.” As I have said before, “What part of “all” do we not understand?

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

If we look at the preamble to the US Constitution, it states:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The most important words are: We, perfect, domestic, tranquillity, general and welfare, as well as the United States of America, of course. Is laissez-faire capitalism or socialism more ensuring of domestic tranquillity? Which economic system, democratic socialism or capitalism further promotes general welfare?

As is written in Isaiah 58:7, “Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter — when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” Share, provide, clothe and do not turn away. Which economic system does this, and which by its design does not?

Those who make capital upon the desires of others, while not considering the needs of others, I must question their Constitution.

Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank

--

I believe that morality should be an important consideration in steering our socioeconomic policies and that Sen. Sanders’ social democracy has much to help us improve those decisions.

Sanders is not offering a choice between capitalism and socialism by any means. UC Professor Lane Kenworthy terms Sen. Sanders a “democratic socialist capitalist” whose beliefs align with the Democratic Party, just more liberal. Our existing, albeit inadequately funded, public entities — police, fire, libraries, schools, Social Security, Medicare — all have socialist characteristics, and without any hint of the specter Rand Paul says must follow. (Where are his fears of mass killing when guns are the topic?)

Anyone who spends any time in our peer countries in Western Europe, or in Canada or Japan — all social democracies using regulation and taxation as Sanders would to create a mixed, equitable economy — should notice the robustness of their public sectors compared to here: well-maintained infrastructure, extensive public transportation, and pervasive welfare and health services. Below university level, our educational outcomes fall short of theirs.

It is not moral to allow so many of us to live on the street, to be poorly nourished, to lack basic healthcare or education, and it makes no economic sense either. It is the true American exceptionalism. Whether you feel the Bern or not, you must credit Sanders with expanding the conversation.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

Although the LDS people in the U.S. are usually associated with conservative philosophies, the church’s worldwide membership lives under many styles of government with varied political philosophies, including the social democracies of Europe.

In part because of that diversity, church leaders typically do not take a position on political issues such as this, and would be especially reluctant to do during an election cycle. So, what follows is my personal view based on my understanding of religion and politics.

The political philosophy of a government is less important than the wisdom of those in charge. Capitalist governments can be generous. In the U.S., this is demonstrated by the social programs that emerged during the Great Depression and, again, amid the abundance of the 1960s. Democratic socialism is sometimes cruel. For several decades following World War II, British socialism kept generations on the edge of poverty without offering a pathway out.

The teachings of Christ offer some insight into the matter. He taught that we should choose, as individuals, to be kind and generous to those who are less fortunate. He told the wealthy young man who sought eternal life to “go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” In other words, Christ taught that the prosperous should redistribute their wealth themselves, as a matter of choice.

I believe we can choose to do this as a society, through the ballot box, under capitalism or democratic socialism. But doing it equitably can be just as difficult as negotiating the choice that Christ gave the young man. Under either system, there is the risk that the powerful will shape policy to their benefit and help for the less fortunate will be limited.

Some members of the LDS church lived under a communal economy, known as the United Order, during the 19th century with the aim of sharing material wealth to meet the needs of all. Unfortunately, the system eventually broke down as a result of outside economic pressure and human weakness. Those same pressures plague government policies, regardless of the philosophy behind them.

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
La Crescenta