Because the established churches are some of the richest institutions on the planet. E.g Where Catholicism is widespread has some or had some of the poorest nations on Earth so what is the church doing with its wealth to assist the people?
Is poverty a moral failing?
- Thread starter UncleRogi
- Start date
I think most verses in the bible about money don't really point out being rich in itself is a problem -- but being attached to your (or as Paul says 'the love of') money is.
Proclaiming 'poverty is a moral failing' shows exactly that (imho) though, that the speaker is attached to money.
Proclaiming 'poverty is a moral failing' shows exactly that (imho) though, that the speaker is attached to money.
Thought for today:
Poverty is a moral failing of the rich.
Why is it so hard for them to share their bounty? Why do they have greed stamped large upon them? Why can't they give?
Let me be clear - I would NEVER expect a family to give everything away, that's plain ridiculous. But... how many millions do you really need to be comfortable? That money just sits in banks and offshore accounts around the world. It is simple, raw greed.
If I ever have that kind of largesse (which is doubtful at this late stage of the game) , depending on the amount, it would be shared with all my family, so their lives can be secure and comfortable, to the next generation. Homes paid, education paid. No flashy cars, but definitely owned. After that, specific charities and services that have helped us over the years.
Why can't the 1% do that? Why does that need to share not exist in their hearts? I admire the likes of Bill Gates and his foundation. They could do more, but I don't expect it of them, they have done a lot.
Poverty is a moral failing of the rich.
Why is it so hard for them to share their bounty? Why do they have greed stamped large upon them? Why can't they give?
Let me be clear - I would NEVER expect a family to give everything away, that's plain ridiculous. But... how many millions do you really need to be comfortable? That money just sits in banks and offshore accounts around the world. It is simple, raw greed.
If I ever have that kind of largesse (which is doubtful at this late stage of the game) , depending on the amount, it would be shared with all my family, so their lives can be secure and comfortable, to the next generation. Homes paid, education paid. No flashy cars, but definitely owned. After that, specific charities and services that have helped us over the years.
Why can't the 1% do that? Why does that need to share not exist in their hearts? I admire the likes of Bill Gates and his foundation. They could do more, but I don't expect it of them, they have done a lot.
Considering poverty a moral failing is itself the only moral failing here, because it allows one to justify absolving themselves from taking any responsibility to assist their fellow people to overcome their financial situation. If you can dismiss the poor as morally bankrupt, than you can easily convince yourself that any effort you make to help them or any taxes you contribute to their benefit would be wasted on them because they're either not good people, they are undeserving of prosperity or assistance, or they are incapable of handling it.
It also allows one to associate wealth with moral character and pat oneself on the back for being more moral than others by virtue of being wealthy, and therefore more qualified to pass judgment. Which comes in handy for the overwhelmingly wealthy members of Congress and the rest of the political class when they are deciding how our budget should be allocated, or the right-wing media when it's falsely pointing out all the immoral welfare queens scamming the system. And let's see how the morally superior among us like Donald Trump propose to distribute that budget:
But wait, there's more:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/16/14943748/trump-budget-outline-moral
Ah, I guess newborns didn't make the morality cut. Shiftless losers, always lying on their back pissing and moaning and expecting others to clean up after their shit. And that'll show you, hungry elderly people. "Oh, I want to retire when I'm 70." No, you'll hobble your wrinkled ass back to the assembly line and work till you're dead if you want to eat, and you'll like it, because morals.
Are young children already moral failures because they didn't choose to be born into a well-to-do family? Because it's been shown that even a marginal increase in financial assistance during early childhood can have significant and far-reaching effects on their earning potential as adults. Short term (and minimal) budget savings from cutting programs like Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF - what we generally call "welfare") can prevent a child from developing the skills they need to perform well in school and on testing, get into or excel at college, or get a steady, well-paying and benefited job later in life. I guess it's a shame they were born immoral and got what they deserved.
Poverty in early childhood may reduce earnings much later in life. For families with incomes below $25,000, children whose family received a $3,000 annual boost to family income when the children were under age 6 earned 17 percent more as adults, and worked 135 more hours per year after age 25, than otherwise-similar children whose families didn’t receive the income boost. The same effect was not found among families making over $25,000, for whom a $3,000 boost in income increased young children’s later earnings by only 2 percent.
It also allows one to associate wealth with moral character and pat oneself on the back for being more moral than others by virtue of being wealthy, and therefore more qualified to pass judgment. Which comes in handy for the overwhelmingly wealthy members of Congress and the rest of the political class when they are deciding how our budget should be allocated, or the right-wing media when it's falsely pointing out all the immoral welfare queens scamming the system. And let's see how the morally superior among us like Donald Trump propose to distribute that budget:
But wait, there's more:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/16/14943748/trump-budget-outline-moral
Ah, I guess newborns didn't make the morality cut. Shiftless losers, always lying on their back pissing and moaning and expecting others to clean up after their shit. And that'll show you, hungry elderly people. "Oh, I want to retire when I'm 70." No, you'll hobble your wrinkled ass back to the assembly line and work till you're dead if you want to eat, and you'll like it, because morals.
Are young children already moral failures because they didn't choose to be born into a well-to-do family? Because it's been shown that even a marginal increase in financial assistance during early childhood can have significant and far-reaching effects on their earning potential as adults. Short term (and minimal) budget savings from cutting programs like Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF - what we generally call "welfare") can prevent a child from developing the skills they need to perform well in school and on testing, get into or excel at college, or get a steady, well-paying and benefited job later in life. I guess it's a shame they were born immoral and got what they deserved.
Poverty in early childhood may reduce earnings much later in life. For families with incomes below $25,000, children whose family received a $3,000 annual boost to family income when the children were under age 6 earned 17 percent more as adults, and worked 135 more hours per year after age 25, than otherwise-similar children whose families didn’t receive the income boost. The same effect was not found among families making over $25,000, for whom a $3,000 boost in income increased young children’s later earnings by only 2 percent.
Last edited:
As long as most poor, or not so rich anglo white folks self identify with the rich white man and not their Hispanic, black, native, Asian counterpart then the ultra capitalist system we have will live long and prosper. However things seem to be changing in the UK, only cos the anglo folks are experiencing the pinch.
Last edited:
"How the system works" is that economic opportunity is largely channeled along lines of inheritance, class, race and social contact. Just understanding that does not make those barriers disappear for those who do not have those advantages.
How would you explain people outside of those lines who are successful?
Opportunity outside those lines is limited. I read a report that said in twenty years, 43% of current jobs won't exist.
Let a few in, keep them on side, keep the dream going for the rest.
Because outliers don't disprove patterns.
Some people, for a variety of reasons, beat the odds and become successful despite all the obstacles thrown in their way and a lack of opportunities available to the privileged few. That doesn't make it a moral failing that other people from similar backgrounds weren't able to achieve the same things.
How VERY strange...you'd think that politicians would know better than anyone that being an immoral idiot can be terribly lucrative.
The percentages.
The crux of Jesus' argument was that a rich person has their reward in this life, while a poor person gets their's - assuming they lead a good/righteous life - in the next.
I'm not rich by the standards of the USA - lower/middle class at best. I used to make better money than I do now and it is harder to get by on less.
I still think having family and friends DOES give a form of wealth that some apparently just don't understand.
I'm not rich by the standards of the USA - lower/middle class at best. I used to make better money than I do now and it is harder to get by on less.
I still think having family and friends DOES give a form of wealth that some apparently just don't understand.
It seems to me that most proponents of the Prosperity Gospel take their piety context
from the Old Testament.
Remember, now, that Joseph built the Pyramids as granaries.
(Edit: Presidential candidate and now Cabinet member Ben Carson stated it is his belief that
the Patriarch Joseph built the Pyramids to store grain, for folk blessedly ignoring American
Politics.)
Last edited:
^Probably. The old testament repeatedly takes the stance that God blesses with earthly riches those who are 'righteous'. That doesn't of course imply that poor people aren't righteous. See Job, for example, who became poor temporarily through no fault of his own.
But in the old testament, too, rich people are usually burdened with the societal responsibility to look well after those who are worse off, and those rich people who refuse to do so, are condemned in the strongest possible terms.
But in the old testament, too, rich people are usually burdened with the societal responsibility to look well after those who are worse off, and those rich people who refuse to do so, are condemned in the strongest possible terms.
The Law required that landowners set aside 10% of their fields where the poor could come and
eat their fill. Couldn't take anything, but...
Wonder what happened to that one....hanging out with the shrimp and lobster, I bet.
^Just as I sincerely doubt the Jubilee was ever actually implemented as prescribed in that same law (implying land property could never actually be sold, only a number of harvests, and property of the land would return to the original owner at Jubilee, release of all slaves and prisoners)... most probably the upper classes would have found that little set of stipulations quite .... inconvenient.
I do wonder though what kind of effects such a radical notion would have had on the economy, when put into practice.
I do wonder though what kind of effects such a radical notion would have had on the economy, when put into practice.
Similar threads
