Repeal the Law of Supply and Demand! It’s the moral thing to do.

I have yet to hear someone actually make a substantive argument as to why being wealthy is immoral. All I hear are catchphrases and hyperbole, and honestly it is getting a little ridiculous.

I hate religious people so much (sort of like this columnist).

“a wall along the Mexican border to ensure that no Hispanic peasant be afforded the opportunity to even feed his family”

So Mexico has no responsibility to feed it’s people? The USA is resonsible for feeding everyone? Maybe you should volunteer to switch places with a peasant?

” wall along the Mexican border “

It’s a PITA to work in Mexico - leagally at least. And that’s if you’re a pro - if you’re a peopn you get beaten, robbed and/or raped before being tossed out or killed.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail410.html#immigration4

Rob, you should be ashamed of yourself. The broad generalizations you set forth in this article are absolutely ludicrous. I frankly find it surprising that the Herald published a piece of trash like this…I’d expect this from New York Times, but not the Herald with Mac in charge.

"In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that: Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse. Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights. Immigrants are denied equal employment rights. Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens. Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service. Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy. Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities. Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.”

Mr. Rossmeissl has just nailed his 95 theses to the Badger Herald door. I agree that hypocrisy runs rampant through the pews of the megachurches, but you cannot categorize all Christians as hypocrites. Just like the disparity in wealth, church hypocrisy is top heavy. And, in most cases, followers mimic their powerful leaders.

You are very young, and alas misguided. Free market capitalism is the only moral economic system since it is the only system that relies on free assocation of consenting participants. All other systems rely on some sort of force. An added benefit is that free market capitalism provides the best outcomes and makes people as a whole better off. It may not provide “perfect outcomes” but no other economic system provides better outcomes. You need to peel back the propaganda that you’ve been immersed in at college and find the way. I suggest reading ayn rand, checking out cafehayek.com, and reading what the CEO of Whole Foods has to say (another former socialist converted to the benefits and morality of capitalism).

Well at least the Christian fundies gave up killing blasphemers and apostates. They may be mad about a nasty cartoon, but they don’t call for murder as retribution.

Once the Religion of Peace (tm) takes over you won’t have to worry about the free market.

Great commentary. Economic Policy Institute and United for a Fair Economy are two of my favorite organizations. Excellent job at pointing out the contradictions. Equality is the moral objective. The immigration debate is awful! Republicans can’t choose between racist xenophobia and extream exploitation. Keep working on focusing people on the material issues it is they that have the most moral bearing. Are you in SLAC?

The second comment on this page reads: "I have yet to hear someone actually make a substantive argument as to why being wealthy is immoral. All I hear are catchphrases and hyperbole, and honestly it is getting a little ridiculous. "

It really depends on your approach.

From an irreligious perspective, being, rich and greedy to boot is no problem, however Christian morality is different.

The following comments will concern Christian living.

Reconciling capitalism with Christianity is not that difficult. Capitalism gives people the freedom to choose to be sinner, or the pious God loving citizen who does not aim to be rich and shares what they have with the poor—free choice, free will. God wants us to be free.

However, pursuing wealth and material is unarguably un-Christian. As well, and much worst, not aiding the poor, not giving what you are able to the poor and the community is not only un-Christina it is sinful. Jesus openly condemns the rich and the wealthy and commands that we all give to the poor. It is the single most salient social obligation Jesus gives us. While saying nothing about homosexuals, Christ condemns the rich and embraces the poor nearly on every page.

The argument is not the being rich is immoral, it is that being "rich," is unchristian, and being Christian and rich is hypocritical. In this case the best you can do is to give your wealth to others.

Money and material goods can never be an "ends" for the Christian. As well hording wealth or refusing to give it to the poor can not be the habit of a Christian. Wealth cannot be your goal, but if you have it you must share with the poor. To do otherwise is simply irreconcilable with the teachings of the Bible.

To do not as Christ commanded is a sin, Christ commanded that we give to the poor—not giving to the poor is a sin.

Hey Rob, Contrary to most of the other responses posted on this site, I would like to thank you for your article and the debate that it seems to cultivate. I do agree with some of the statements about broad generalizations, but such generalizations do have some merit, which is why they seem to strike a guilty chord with your upper-middleclass readers. Indeed, there seems to be this pardox of greedy individuals purporting to be living in the name of Christ.

And in response to those who say that the free market is the true moral economic system, I somewhat agree that this could be. However, we do not currently live/work within a true free market if major corporations get tax breaks from the federal government. Eliminate corporate welfare and make industry pay for the true costs of its actions (who pays the health and environmental costs due to pollution?), and then maybe your free market will work to develop positive change and innovation.

Well written. An important fact you’ve omitted, or of which you’re unaware, is that charitable giving is directly proportional to income. Don’t take my word for it. Compare income tax rates with charitable giving from 1930 to present. Higher income results in higher charitable giving. I’m thankful for the church parking lots full of BMW’s because far more charitable giving comes from the BMW owners than from those without the means to afford such luxuries. I’m also thankful for the Lexus drivers because they are likely paying the advertising bills for the Badger Herald and without them, we wouldn’t have this forum for exchange of ideas.

Well, Anonymous at 7:48 PM, I’ll have to take your word for it, being Jewish myself. All I have to say, though, is with that being the case isn’t the Roman Catholic Church about the greatest hypocrisy in the world? The Pope lives extremely lavishly. Does he get by on the excuse that he doesn’t technically personally own anything?

Arguing that Christianity is incompatible with wealth has, perhaps, its merits and Biblical support, yet the story cited by Rob cannot be used to reach the conclusion that all Christians must be dirt poor. When Jesus told the “rich young ruler” to sell all of his goods for the poor, he did not do this to set an immovable standard for his followers, but rather to illustrate how wealth can prevent an individual from accepting the need for a savior. Christianity is about accepting that we are not sufficient in ourselves without Christ, and for someone who can buy anything, this would be understandably hard to accept.
The New Testament does have several verses about giving to the poor, but how valid would those verses be if all Christians were, in fact, poor. Basic ideas of Christian charity would be rendered useless if every single Christian did not have anything to give. This is not to say that the Bible supports the exploitation of the lower classes or greed in general, but if I am reading Rob correctly (as being a socialist), can anyone actually argue that the Bible would support a system where the government controls and disperses most of the nation’s finances?

Phillip Lindholm, you make an interesting point, on the surface anyway.

To ague that the commands of Christ's taken too literally are somehow incompatible with logic (how can anyone give to the poor if everyone is "dirt poor"), would challenge almost every doctrine of the faith including that which gives any authority to a book so processed as the Bible, the Jewish part and the Christian part.

Your logic fails on at least one account: You assume that riches or abundant material is needed for the act of giving. You must see how this is not true.

More over, the general tendency is to bend the Bible to suite the needs of the reader. Honest pursuits in hermeneutics are read. The Bible clearly condemns material pursuits and the rich, homosexuality and violence of any kind (including war). What is telling is how the reader tries to bend the Bible to serve their agenda.

You are right, I think, about God wanting us to have freedom. Also if your not free, you cannot be held morally accountable.

Well, Jewish Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 10:25pm). Yes, Church hypocrisy is not hard to find. All faiths have the unfortunate feature of corrupt leadership to some degree. This says little, about Jesus, but rather much about the Church, as do peoples' hermeneutics say more about them than the scripture. Hypocrisy, in fact Jesus was wont to expose "Church" hypocrisies especially those who had sold out to Rome for worldly comfort, hey and he was Jewish. You guys have much in common is seems.

It is true that one can give of him or herself without having any money, and as the middle class demonstrates, you do not have to be rich to in order to give charitably to your church or other institutions. However, this fact still does not justify a whole religion of people giving up all of their material possessions. Jesus condemns the rich young ruler, but would he condemn me for using my money to pay for college or to financially support other individuals when that college degree helps me to earn a respectable wage? There is a line where you can say something like, “Owning this second boat makes me more likely to share the gospel,” and I think that is a good example of twisted logic, but there is much that a Christian cannot feasibly do without money - like eat, dress and sleep under a roof. Christians also could not provide these necessities for the poor if they were, in fact, also poor. Another problem with this logic is answering the question of what the poor are to do with the charity they receive. If the Bible apparently demands poverty from all Christians, once a poor individual receives some charity, he would not be allowed to keep it because he would no longer be poor. Once again, this violates the very idea of charity that permeates Jesus’ teaching.

Finally, the previous comment has misinterpreted my logic. I am not promoting the idea that everything Jesus said was not to be taken literally. The “rich young ruler” example was not given in command form, though, it was obviously a parable. Would anybody argue that parables are to be followed word for word? It should be clear that there is a lesson to be learned beyond the obvious. Jesus was a smart man, he did not hesitate to speak in metaphor, though determining when his lessons are literal or figurative demands the patience to interpret each one on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to say that everything he said should be taken literally or figuratively - to do so would be hopelessly generalize.

Jesus must certainly be more than a smart man Phillip.

It is unfair, dishonest and crass to suggest I give poverty as the only alternative to rich. So why create the false dilemma. No being rich does not entail being poor. A respectable wage is entirely different than claiming hundreds of thousands or millions a year etc.

What is the cutoff? Hard to say, but one could just put in to proportion by comparing it to the poor. One also knows when their goals are about material rather than experiences, connecting with God and endowing their community. One knows when they have hundreds of thousands and their neighbors are poor, one knows when they hate the poor. What, honestly, would Jesus or any of the Apostles say about living life towards the goal of owning a Mansion, or a Yukon or an H'2? You keep citing "The rich young ruler” as though it were the only case or Jesus' commands on wealth and poverty. Also this can not be limited to his parables and in no way limited to metaphor. Jesus clearly commands his followers and others to give their wealth and condemns the rich. Why some Christians maintain that Jesus could walk on water but when he commanded them to through off wealth and condemned the rich they chalk it up to metaphor or as context specific. This is telling indeed. Command form or parable, metaphor or not, Jesus, we can be sure, never told anyone to get rich or not to give to the poor.

It is not a sin to keep only moderate amounts of wealth, just as it is not a sin to never commit an act of violence. However, there is a very good chance that it is a sin to keep riches or to engage in violence. This first action is sure bet the second is a gamble. The wager is yours.

To suppose that if everyone was giving than no one would have is absurd. Indeed if all gave to the poor then they would soon be rich and so they keep give in turn. The cycle is only broken when greed takes hold and the feed back loop deposits all the money in the one who stopped giving. The one who made money their object, their goal. Wealth culture in this country is un-Christian. It is not a virtue to be wealthy and never will be. Giving is, not giving isn't simple. As Christians we must all give till we are no longer wealthy.

I don’t think Rob was trying to say that being wealthy automatically makes you immoral. You can be wealthy and still have poverty of heart (which is the type of poverty that priests take a vow of), grace, and humility. It is interesting to see, however, the lack of poverty of heart that this adminstration has. If the leaders were wealthy but took responsibility for their actions, they wouldn’t look so greedy. Good article, Rob.