Discussion
~

Richard Rieben:

Robert Bowman,

I enjoyed your recent article, Toward a Jesus Society. Many of your themes parallel my own work, and I draw upon the teachings of Jesus for much of my own guidance. I did find one thing askew, however, and I wondered about it ... then figured I might presume to give you a different vantage.

The matter was the issue of charity and looking after the poor ... and you mentioned two American viewpoints, the "right" and the "left" - one saying it should be left to the churches and individuals, the other saying it should be accomplished through taxation (coercion). You supported the latter, saying, essentially, that it is not human nature to help people. This confounds me, as much as it would confound Jesus. But I have a different background than you.

I have lived in several third world countries. And, there, I have seen people taking care of one another in their communities in a manner that amazed me (at first), and which struck me as more "Christian" than the "western" christians. But my reference is to the Christ, and not to "lowercase" religious organizations (which tend to subvert the teachings of the prophets). Few of these communities were christian ... some were hindi, some muslim, some buddhist.

My point, and a strong thesis in my writings - both political and ethical - is that it IS human nature to respect one another and to care for one another. Having actually seen it at work - in non-christian communities - has shown me that Jesus had it right in His perception of human nature.

I've never doubted Jesus, but I turned away from christianity (lowercase) a long time ago, mostly because it has very little to do with Jesus. (Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God, is not, alas, outdated in its observations.)

Anyway, you might want to re-think the notion that you have to force people to take care of one another. It actually ends up having the opposite affect (much like communism, and for the same reasons). I have noticed that our bureaucratic assistance forestalls our natural inclinations to help one another (and lawsuits haven't helped, either). The people in the uSA used to be more active in helping the poor around them ... whether pomposely acting for the church, or merely following their human instincts to care for one another. Today, to help people in the uSA, you have to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops, few of which protect anyone (aside from the bureaucrats), such that most people resist getting involved, which is what the bureaucracy encourages - help is only acceptable if it goes through some official, liberal organization (including churches and government redistribution centers).

I could also offer considerable insight on the affects of institutional assistance, through religious, ngo or governmental programs in the guise of "foreign aid," which invariably causes more harm than good. There are structural and power reasons why this must be so. I have seen vast areas destroyed by foreign aid ... and by the militant missionary spirit (which was not Christ's way).

The message of Jesus is to "have faith" in God, in the innate goodness of human nature (which is not the message of organized religion), and in the universe (God, again). If you have to use force to "make" people good, then you've missed the point and the message.

Jesus had it RIGHT. When you hold on to that basic truth, and use it as your guide, then you'll find that you don't have to contradict Jesus to practice what he taught.

Undoubtedly, in the main, you already know this. I'm just underlining it. (Albeit presumptuously, methinks!)

Richard Rieben

Robert Bowman:

Dear Richard,

You make some excellent points. And I agree with you on foreign aid. My conclusion on government public services (like health care, a guaranteed livable wage, etc.) is based on the American culture. Certainly such coerced or taxpayer-paid services are unnecessary in much of rural America, in small towns, and in communities which have preserved their culture. But in cities, suburbs, and mixed areas, there is a problem. The people with resources are not in the same community with those in need. What you have witnessed in third-world villages just won't happen in much of America. Part of the problem comes from the modern robber barons who tax workers ten times as much for corporate profits as government does to provide services. Corporations are organized globally, and are more powerful than any national government. Their corporate media push consumerism and selfishness. I'll have to think more about it, but I just don't think your suggestion will work in our culture.

Bob Bowman

Richard Rieben:

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your prompt and considered response to my comments.

In the main, I agree with the idea you have about American culture, but, then again, to me, that's like saying that Christ got it wrong. And I really don't think He did.

In the aftermath of the Soviet Union, we discovered that patterns had been established that had destroyed the natural sense of community, even in the most rural areas of the former Soviet Union. Resulting in a certain individual inertia and social pettiness, both of which were logical outcomes of enforced programs of, well - basically - welfare schemes.

These people have had to be "re-taught" community ... which has been doubly difficult as most of their teachers have been westerners who, by this point, have a fairly distant grasp of community themselves ... and, alas, we didn't think to send African villagers to show the alienated Russians the natural boundaries of peasant community!

Your comments on rural America are, I am suspecting, from a not-so-distant past. I moved to the rural midwest about three years ago. It astounds me how isolated and unhelpful these people are, even amongst themselves. Due to the impact of agricultural handouts, they have become very dependent upon social services. It's rare that you find people actually helping one another; and they are very petty about "what's in it for me" ... this is not how I grew up (in Seattle), but both my parents were from small towns and taught me that helping people was part of being human, by their example.

You are on-target about corporations ... I have been writing about them for years.

But, then again, saying that it "just won't happen in America," is like saying it would've been kinder (?) to have left communism in place, rather than forcing those poor Russian peasants to make a harsh, rough adjustment back to humanity.

I don't know. Maybe my approach is a kind of "tough-love" thing.

I am unusually committed to the inherent goodness of the human species, based mostly on my experiences abroad. I have faith that if we stop inflicting pain on people, they will stop hurting one another. This sounds impractical and philosophical (esoteric?), but I wish to stress that Jesus's program is, above anything else, a practical one. (Again, organized religion's derailment of that program not withstanding.)

Admittedly, for your article, this issue is possibly more complex than could be included there. You cover so many things there ... and so well ... that my complaint is a minor footnote. But Jesus should be trusted. Howsoever bizarre that might seem.

On the other hand, I do not wish to question your faith, nor presume to suggest that I know Jesus better than you. If I am misunderstanding something about Jesus, hit me with it!

Thank you, again, for your considerate response (and your excellent article).

By the way, Christian Butterbach has reprinted your article on his website. I cc'd him my earlier comments to you, and he has asked me if he could post them below the article. (As, to him, I believe this signals an acceptance of the article by his readership and a vote of confidence in his decision to post the article.) I have no personal objection to his proposal, but my thinking is that it might seem to detract from the article (in a quibbling sort of manner). Then, too, my response was to you, personally, and not intended for public posting. However, all of that to the side, I defer to your judgment. If you have no objections, neither do I. And I appreciate that Christian respects people's property and feelings, and requests permission for such things!

Richard Rieben

Richard C.B. Johnsson:

I read Mr. Bowman’s article this morning. It was great in many ways, although I don’t share all his premises or conclusions. What is really great is that you have chosen to front a Catholic archbishop on your site. Atheists often are very intolerant towards religious people – I know I was for a while after my Randian encounter – and neither you nor John [CB: John Zube] seems to be any better in this regard. Anyway, great work!

I always aim at being #1 [CB: The encounter doesn't seem to be fully over yet... But wait till you have read Max Stirner! ]. But I already felt like a winner to have my texts on your site, so do as you please. I wouldn’t mind being second to Mr. Bowman. [CB: This refers to my original plan to start the new "Main Fare ~" rubric with an essay by Richard C.B. Johnsson; in the meantime the further sequence had to be changed again.]

Personally, I follow John’s general advice so I’m atheist, pagan and religious - why one faith?

/R

Now I’ve read it. [CB: This refers to Richard Rieben's "Respectful comment" above.] RR raises the same main point I would have, I think. BB [CB: This stands of course for Bob Bowman, not Brigitte Bardot, though I am not so sure about Richard C.B. Johnsson's subconscious, as he also could have chosen RB, standing for Robert Bowman... ] might be right about the corporations, but he seems to be very statist as he seems to believe that gov’t coercion is the solution. Forced charity, what a strange idea!

I wonder if you have a comment on his views of homosexuality. He basically says that we should respect homosexuals only because “homosexuals are born that way”. What if not? Do homosexuals not deserve our respect then? Is that his message? Why is it necessary to constrain respect for other human beings like that? I’d love to hear your view on this.

[CB: I wrote: I do not feel now like writing much on homosexuality. One should respect homosexuals as individuals, nothing less, nothing more. Who are we to decide over other persons? We are NOT government thugs or mullahs.

Bowman as a United Catholic/Old Catholic is much better than a Roman Catholic (and any other denomination). That's enough for me. I do not need him. But those Christians with capital C need him. And if those improve somewhat, it will help us all.]

[CB: To the above RCBJ (an easy enough "acronym", needing no comment for the time being) had simply answered with "AMEN!" after quoting my ”One should respect homosexuals as individuals, nothing less, nothing more.” I am entirely sure that this amen was a profoundly atheist, pagan and religious one at the same time! ]

Perhaps you ought to put “return” links on both the text and discussion pages. You sent me a direct link to the discussion but it wasn’t obvious where the mainfare main site was.

[CB: Will be done subito! After all, this will be easier than to fresh up my little Swedish. ]

I hope Rev. Bowman will read the #2 text.

[CB: I don't know whether you mean the old #2 which will now become #4 or the new #2 which will become #3. Have I got you mixed up a little now? All the better, some readers of my sites are waiting since a long time for a revenge! Rev. Bowman will no doubt read your text (whether you mean the one on academe or the one on monopoly) and gather something valuable from it. Not that many people have shown so well that they are capable of learning their whole life and reach a quite nice level of knowledge and synthesis. After all, Col. Bowman once flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. That was in 1969 and 1970. We are now in 2005. Whether we are now farther away from or nearer to apocalypse is a matter of debate.]