NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that christianity was used as something to make Americans feel different from the USSR, but when was the association between the religion and the economic policy first created?

I guess nobody knows. Never mind. No harm in asking.

I know that christianity was used as something to make Americans feel different from the USSR, but when was the association between the religion and the economic policy first created?


England, France, Rome, Byzantines...

England, France, Rome, Byzantines...

Yeah, but in England (I can't speak for the rest), it was mainly because the Monarch was the head of the church. Theoretically, America shouldn't have that problem.

I was just wondering, because I heard that "In God We Trust" was added to banknotes (if they're called something else in the US, I mean paper money) around the time of the cold war.

Yeah, but in England (I can't speak for the rest), it was mainly because the Monarch was the head of the church. Theoretically, America shouldn't have that problem.

I was just wondering, because I heard that "In God We Trust" was added to banknotes (if they're called something else in the US, I mean paper money) around the time of the cold war.
1861ish. Religion fervor and all that jazz.

1861ish. Religion fervor and all that jazz.

What is religion fervour?

I know that christianity was used as something to make Americans feel different from the USSR, but when was the association between the religion and the economic policy first created?

Well, actually, I think the original links go back to the Calvinist Puritans. They thought that if they became wealthy, it would be a sign from God that they were one of the preordained saved, so naturally they worked their asses off to acquire wealth.

What is religion fervour?
Passion. Like biblethumping.

Do you mean the idea that one's identity as an American, a Christian and most importantly, a Consumer, is interconnected? Hard to say, it is certainly a relatively recent phenomenon, as we see it today. Possibly it only began in earnest in the mid-1980s.

Do you mean the idea that one's identity as an American, a Christian and most importantly, a Consumer, is interconnected? Hard to say, it is certainly a relatively recent phenomenon, as we see it today. Possibly it only began in earnest in the mid-1980s.

Yeah, I meant that, more or less.

I know that christianity was used as something to make Americans feel different from the USSR, but when was the association between the religion and the economic policy first created?

I don't think there ever was a deliberate association between Christianity and Capitalism. Democracy and Capitalism, however, are inseperable You can't have free people without a free market, and vice versa.

BTW, Communism more closely describes the practice of Christianity than does any other economic policy. In the New Testament the earliest Christian believers sold everything they owned and then lived together, sharing everything equally.

Go figure.

Democracy and Capitalism, however, are inseperable You can't have free people without a free market, and vice versa.

I heard somewhere that free-market and capitalism aren't the same thing. I don't know if anyone here knows anything about that, but they can feel free to post it if they do.

My impression is that capitalism was a big component of British Protestantism-wealth being a sign that one had God's favor, I believe. That would have obviously carried over with the first Puritan immigrants who settled in America.

Democracy and Capitalism, however, are inseperable You can't have free people without a free market, and vice versa.

So, you are saying it would be totally theoretically impossible for the people to democratically decide to pass the free market over into total centralised control and planning by the state. Seems like there is nothing inherently contradictory in such a move.

I don't think there ever was a deliberate association between Christianity and Capitalism. Democracy and Capitalism, however, are inseperable You can't have free people without a free market, and vice versa.

BTW, Communism more closely describes the practice of Christianity than does any other economic policy. In the New Testament the earliest Christian believers sold everything they owned and then lived together, sharing everything equally.

Go figure.
not quite, they could sell their stuff but they didn't have to give all of it to the church just their 10% , their were to people who where struck dead for lieing about HOW much they made off selling a feild, not the amount they gave can't rember the chapter.

So, you are saying it would be totally theoretically impossible for the people to democratically decide to pass the free market over into total centralised control and planning by the state. Seems like there is nothing inherently contradictory in such a move.
control is contradictory to total freedom mind you I am not an anarchist as most here know.

This is something I've wondered about too. I'm a [Canadian] Christian socialist. It's really hard when I go up to all my "George Bush is a Christian" friends.

Well, in Canada, at least, I know that Tommy Douglas, from the 1940's to the 1960's, was a Baptist minister. So, at least in Canada, it's somewhere between the 1960's and today.

This is something I've wondered about too. I'm a [Canadian] Christian socialist. It's really hard when I go up to all my "George Bush is a Christian" friends.

Well, in Canada, at least, I know that Tommy Douglas, from the 1940's to the 1960's, was a Baptist minister. So, at least in Canada, it's somewhere between the 1960's and today.
this implies that bush isn't a christain i don't think god minds what the goverments do as long as they don't kill people but I do, as do you, and many others.

not quite, they could sell their stuff but they didn't have to give all of it to the church just their 10% , their were to people who where struck dead for lieing about HOW much they made off selling a feild, not the amount they gave can't rember the chapter.

He's talking about the really old school catholics, i.e. the apostles and whoever else happened to be literally following chirst at that time (most people just followed him for a short while or weren't important enough to be called apostles).

control is contradictory to total freedom mind you I am not an anarchist as most here know.

Ah yes, but total freedom must also include the freedom to grant responsibility to others, yes? Thus it would be possible for a totally free people to pass responsibility for the market to the state - they could even maintain their total freedom if the state control could be recalled by them, no?

An alternative way of looking at it is to use it to point out the problems in an idea of 'total freedom' - it it 'total freedom to' or 'total freedom from'? In a free market (theoretically) the people have total freedom to decide, while in a state controlled market the people have total freedom from the need to decide.

this implies that bush isn't a christain i don't think god minds what the goverments do as long as they don't kill people but I do, as do you, and many others.

Or going against the Bible. That's what the crux of the socialist/Christian argument is: is socialism against the Bible?

I don't know if Bush is a Christian or not.

Or going against the Bible. That's what the crux of the socialist/Christian argument is: is socialism against the Bible?

I don't know if Bush is a Christian or not.
no socialism is not against the bible.

Are you insane :confused:

Or going against the Bible. That's what the crux of the socialist/Christian argument is: is socialism against the Bible?

I don't know if Bush is a Christian or not.

I can't really see how it would be. After all, Marx's maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is actually based on a line from Timothy. Most early Christian communities were largely based on a primitive socialist ethic.

Ah yes, but total freedom must also include the freedom to grant responsibility to others, yes? Thus it would be possible for a totally free people to pass responsibility for the market to the state - they could even maintain thier total freedom if the state control could be recalled by them, no?
yes but the likelyness of unanimous descion is about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
I would go futher but I don't think the real number would be small enough to put in.

yes but the likelyness of unanimous descion is about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
I would go futher but I don't think the real number would be small enough to put in.

That all depends on the size of the state - making such a unanimous decision in the USA is a very different thing from making a similar unanimous decision in the Vatican City. Never mind the fact that we may have a new state which is expressingly set up on the basis of state ecconomic control by a totally free people moving into an unoccupied area or territory.

Most early Christian communities were largely based on a primitive socialist ethic.

'Communualist' seems to describe them quite well without dragging in excess baggage carried by using loaded terms like 'communist' or 'socialist'.

I think Christianity was with us since the inception but only became a part of our governmental culture (God in the pleage etc.) when the communists started burning Churches

no socialism is not against the bible.

Are you insane :confused:

I never said it was. This is what other Christians think. I'm one of a few Christian socialists.

I never said it was. This is what other Christians think. I'm one of a few Christian socialists.
tell them that the bible don't preach much on economics they should understand that. ( I just spoke me some texan words. that was a bad joke)

the bible is not against socialism but it is against forcing it on people. Socialism should only be adopted if everyone, not just a majority, in a nation accepts it.

Okay.

Here's a few arguments they tend to use:

"If a man does not work, neither shall he eat."

And then there's the fact that Tommy Douglas believed in the goodness of man.

Okay.

Here's a few arguments they tend to use:

"If a man does not work, neither shall he eat."

And then there's the fact that Tommy Douglas believed in the goodness of man.
if a man works in searcch of work he is still working, and deserves food but if a man seems a fool pay him double will probably be a resposne, "Give to ceaser what is Ceasers and give to god what is god's" is a quote you should use, and is that a quote from the bible? (tithing and taxs)

if a man works in searcch of work he is still working, and deserves food but if a man seems a fool pay him double will probably be a resposne, "Give to ceaser what is Ceasers and give to god what is god's" is a quote you should use, and is that a quote from the bible? (tithing and taxs)

Yeah, it's a quote from the Bible. Matthew, I think. It's where they ask Jesus if they should pay taxes.

I don't really understand your first point. Could you please explain more?

Yeah, it's a quote from the Bible. Matthew, I think. It's where they ask Jesus if they should pay taxes.

I don't really understand your first point. Could you please explain more?
as long as someones looking for work and working hard at doing that they still deserve food, oh and I knew the taxs one was I was asking about a man who does not work does not deserve have food.

England, France, Rome, Byzantines...
Short answer (further down for critique of the quote above):

None of these were capitalist during their Christian-religious periods. Feudal and mercantilist, primarily. Feudalism went well with christianity; capitalism doesn't, really, naturally fall in with religion of any sort. Oddly enough, communism/socialism probably goes better with religion, but the whole marxist belief that religion is the opiate of the masses sort of torpedoed that.

The Puritans, as Xeno states, are probably the originators of the connection in America. I think that the link you specifically mention, though, was something of a national identity issue in the 1950s; the South at that time had a lot of sway in the country at the time, and so the 'national identity' became somewhat Christian, when we were having issues with where we stood on all sorts of issues, since we suddenly found ourselves being an international superpower after having spent 150 years staying out of international politics, with a few exceptions (1898, 1916). It was to SOME extent communist anti-religious sentiment that drove us to separate ourselves, but to a large extent it was simply a definition of national identity. You could probably trace it back even further, to the depression era, which if I recall correctly it was in the mid-30s that "In god we trust" was added to the banknote.

Religion is the refuge of the desperate and the hopeless (and i don't mean to sound antireligious here, i'm not, but people who are desperate and have lost all hope tend to find religion, is what I mean), and also a means of bringing disperate peoples together. America has been in hard straits before, particularly in the 30s, and needed something to bring itself together, both in the 30s and in the 50s, and given the far majority of Americans (including those in charge) are Christian ... there you have it.



Long answer to that specific quote:

Um, none of those were capitalist at the time you're thinking. England is only capitalist after early-19th century, well after its monarchal period (by that point the church didn't have a lot of say in government, nevermind the technical role of the monarch); it was a mercantilist state, and before that a feudal state.

France is not, was not, and has never been Capitalist. Socialist (now), mercantilist/imperialist, feudal, again, but never capitalist.

Rome is hard to pin down by modern terminology, but feudal is close to it for parts of the Roman Empire, and post-Constantine, it's pretty accurate. Byzantium fell in a similar range; though it was strongly influenced by Persian and Greek economics, so it was an interesting mix of economies. I'm not as familiar with Byzantium as I am with the others, but it definitely wasn't capitalist. Capitalism wasn't really possible until the industrial revolution; the necessary surpluses couldn't really be produced, no matter how large the economy, and if they could be, transportation problems and costs prevented the trade of said surpluses without governmental involvement. Rome imported millions of tons of grain from Egypt per year, for example, but they did it primarily on huge convoys of ships, paid for by the emperor (and then had a huge feast).

France and England, on the other hand, had the ability to produce said surpluses, but the combination of the Imperial Age encouraging them to gain goods and materials from other countries by essential theft rather than production, and the mercantilist philosophy of that era that required a great degree of governmental involvement and control over the flow of goods and specie (ie, gold) prevented capitalism from gaining a foothold until (Adam) Smith and (David) Hume got involved in affecting English economics in the latter part of the 18th century, and that nasty revolution and subsequent century of warfare prevented the French from developing capitalist tendencies for quite a while.

the bible is not against socialism but it is against forcing it on people. Socialism should only be adopted if everyone, not just a majority, in a nation accepts it.

The bible isn't in favor of any specific form of economic system, nor is it judgemental of any specific political system. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" is intended to imply that God does not care about money, but about your moral and religious situation.

The problem with your specific statement, gaposis, is that assuming you applied that to every system, we'd never be in ANY system - there's not one system that everyone accepts. It's just not going to happen, ever, in a nation over a few thousand people. You have to either segregate people by their preferences - which would work only if people didn't care where they lived, which is patently not true [ie, palestine!] - or go with a 'majority rules' scenario. It's just not pragmatic to require unanimous consent. A bad system is better than no system at all.

I heard somewhere that free-market and capitalism aren't the same thing. I don't know if anyone here knows anything about that, but they can feel free to post it if they do.

Free Market is a practice in which there is no government regulation of commerce. Capitalism is more complicated, and it's a theory. It says that when two people make a deal it is supposed to work out well for both. It also claims that there are built in balances of market forces that assure that things will work out best for all parties involved without government intervention. Eg. The government doesn't have to enforce any sort of quality control standards because if a company makes a product that kills its consumers then that company will lose business.

Of course for this to work you actually have to abolish all government intervention. Like no police so that companies have to bribe the people not to burn their buildings and loot the wreckage.

Free market economy allows for the emergence of such practices as payment in the form of company vouchers that are only redeemable at the company stores that charge so much that the longer you work at the company the more heavily in debt you are just to feed yourself. Or the more modern version, the Enron pension plan where employees paychecks had money siphoned off under the guise of "pension fund" which was actually stock that they technically owned, but weren't allowed to sell.

True free market demands anarchy, anything else is either oppression of the poor or robbery of the rich.
Capitalism is like a mediocre clock. It works, but every now and then it goes a bit wrong and it has to be reset.

I know that christianity was used as something to make Americans feel different from the USSR, but when was the association between the religion and the economic policy first created?

Capitalism and Protestantism are very closely tied together. Many of the tenets of men like Adam Smith (invisible hand, anyone?) can be drawn directly from the teachings of Martin Luther, Calvin, and other Protestant reformers. Basically, it's where you get the change from embracing the poor and downtrodden to the last four to five hundred years' worth of "blame the victim" policies and focus on capitalism.

Capitalism is tied to the Protestant ethic of work - being productive was (and is) seen as an act of devotion to God. Productivity is godly, according to the Protestant ethic. This fits in nicely with a capitalistic world view. Calvinism took it a step further, proclaiming that the wealthy are such because God wills it. Protestantism basically destroyed communal living, alms giving, and the holiness of the poor that Catholicism had encouraged (Luther's reformation was directed at the upper levels of Church government, and not necessarily the tenets as practiced by worshippers and local parishes).

Of course, this is an oversimplification, as befits the limited space here. You can read selections from Bruce S. Jansson's "The Reluctant Welfare State" or "Understanding Social Welfare (5th ed.)" and "Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need" by Ralph Dolgoff.

Interestingly enough, the first colonies, such as the Puritans and the Virginia colonies were communal. Abortion was practiced up to the Civil War as an acceptable and non-stigmatized form of family size control. Even homosexuality (sodomy laws) were left up to the localities to legislate until the late 1800s. But that's neither here nor there, and not directly related to the question at hand.