We all know the only true Calvinist political philosophy is nihilistic anarchism.
Calvinism teaches that some are Elect and the rest are damned. Nothing can change these categories, as no worldly act or level of faith can turn God’s righteous wrath, as he holds you over an eternal pit of fire, you loathsome insect writhing in His hand, why, it makes Him sick just to look at you…
And the Elect would never do anything terrible, so they’re going to Heaven because they were designed and fore-ordained to do so.
Therefore, as nothing we do in this world can possibly really, truly matter, following rules here is worse than pointless: This world will be all the Heaven most of us get. We’ll have this brief moment in the sun before we’re cast into eternal pain, suffering, and Comcast customer service, so imposing self-denial in this world is both immensely dangerous and immensely presumptive. Who are we to say that following rules makes us better or worse people, when He has already decided in the full scope of His wisdom what kind of people we are? We might as well be chimps putting on palm fronds, thinking that it will be good enough to get us into the Vatican.
Have you read Sarah Vowell’s The Wordy Shipmates? Its probably more Puritanism than Calvinism. The colony of Massachusetts was founded by Puritans. A lot of our early rhetoric about what America is came from them, and their descendants were essential to the formation of the country.
Puritans believed that God’s favor was reflected by success in this life. Since you wanted all your neighbors to believe you had God’s favor, you tended to work really hard - that might not wind up being sufficient for success, but it was necessary. Puritans were very authoritarian in structure - although they believed (unlike Catholics) that ordinary men were qualified to preach the Bible (they did have issues when Anne Hutchinson - a mere woman - preached, but she did have some “odd for the Puritans” views) and they were not tolerant - they frequently exiled people from their community (one of those people was Anne Hutchinson).
“God’s favor was reflected by success in this life.”
Outward material prosperity is a sign of God’s favor.
Something like this: *Therefore, those who are already outwardly prosperous deserve help from the government (lower taxes and regulation), and those who are poor…well, God is telling us that he doesn’t like them anyway, so let’s shrink Medicaid, eliminate social welfare programs, and FORCE those lazy slackers to get up and go to work. They don’t deserve our compassion because God has already judged them unworthy and the evidence is that he made them poor. And let’s call this approach Economic Policy.
*
Can anyone honestly say that this has NOT been the *subtext *of Republican public discourse for the last 10 years or so? Of course, no one’s going to come out and SAY it. :rolleyes:
Surely, I’m not the only one staring at the naked emperor?
Other posters have made contributions to this discussion. Your “challenges” to me personally are not making any contribution. You’re adopting the position of a heckler. I will be interested to read a post of substance from you.
By contribution, you mean people that have either agreed with you or played along?
I question your premise because you’ve provided no evidence. You asked if anyone would take the position that your unsupported premise was not accurate. I do. Gratuitous assertions may be rejected gratuitously.
No. Nor will any more acknowledgement of your posts unless they contain substance, i.e., something besides calling me out. I don’t want a fight or a debate.
While coming out and saying cursed are the poor is not something that you are likely to hear a Republican say, since the contradiction with the beatitudes is too stark for even them to ignore, there is definitely a sentiment among Republicans that the poor are poor due to flaws in their character. So while they may not be officially cursed by god, they are slothful sinners and so deserve their situation. Any effort to alleviate their situation is thus enabling them to continue their sinful ways without suffering the consequences of their sin.
That’s got nothing to do with hard work being good or not: it’s got to do with shortsightedness on the part of our kings. The population didn’t own that gold, the Crown did. Individuals did build successful businesses both in the New World and in the Old one. The biggest source of contention between the Crown and the Colonies should be familiar: taxation without representation. You can’t tax people who have no income, but if you’re squandering every penny you do overtax.
Carlos V is generally called Carlos V, not because that’s his number in any of our Kingdoms*, but because it’s his number as Holy Roman Emperor. The amount of money he dumped into Flanders and Germany, both to get the throne and in the wars, might have been enough to build the Panamericana five centuries earlier.
Felipe II again had a black hole in Flanders.
The other Hapsburgs were on the quick downslope to imbecility. Their validos were very hard-working guys; hard-working at making sure any money that got lost around Palacio stuck to their fingers.
I for Castille; I for Aragon; IV for Navarre (he would have been V if Carlos Prince of Viana had accessed the throne, but Carlos the Prince got throneblocked by his dad, Juan I of Aragon).
I don’t see anything remotely like an echo chamber in here. Multiple people have challenged her preconceptions. They’ve flat out said they don’t think there are any such Calvinistic roots.
What those people haven’t done that you have is try to start a political fight or make snide insinuations. **ThelmaLou **has made it clear that those aren’t welcome. This is IMHO, after all, not GD.
All she asked you to do was bring some sort of substance to your responses. This post is a tacit admission that you either cannot or will not do so.
All that was asked for was agreement, nothing more! Snide insinuations? How coy - which would those be? Disparaging remarks about a political party, but oh no not a political fight. If you think my posts have been inappropriate feel free to report them.
The substance that I brought was to question the premise and point out the void of evidence. Rather than a tacit admission, the OP explicitly stated she will not offer any evidence.
The general narrative favored by most Republicans is the exact opposite of “poor people are destined to be poor because they were condemned by God and there is nothing they can do about it.”
Rather, Republicans favor the idea that poor people are poor because they made incorrect decisions and wealthy people are wealthy because they made the correct decisions. “Poor people are poor because they are lazy, because they do not value education, because they spend their money on flashy cars and clothes instead of prudently saving and investing it, because they have children out of wedlock, and government welfare encourages people to make bad decisions by removing the consequences of behaving rashly. If they didn’t have food stamps to fall back on poor people would have to get jobs and forgo buying gold chains and overpriced sneakers. Whereas wealthy people earned their wealth through hard work, self discipline and wise decisions, and the government should incentivize these behaviors. High taxes on the wealthy discourage hard work and prudent habits.”
I’m not necessarily saying that I subscribe to such beliefs, but that’s far closer to the party line favored by Republicans than the theory the OP is espousing.
Thanks for that comment. This makes it a discussion. Everything you’re saying is absolutely true.
Note that my thread title is “ROOTS” in Calvinism. I’m not promoting the theory that if you ask the average Republican if God hates poor people s/he will say yes.
I’m promoting the idea that that Calvinism–>Puritanism is deeply ROOTED in our national “soul,” if you will. (The Protestant Work Ethic is what the hypothetical poor people in your description don’t follow.)
Just ponder this… when you (not you personally, unless you’re a Tea Party Republican) look at a crowd of people on a city street, which ones are the good, moral people, the ones who should Be In Charge? Is it the panhandlers or the Men in Suits who toss the keys to their jaguars to the parking lot attendant? Isn’t there an implicit judgment that people who have money, good jobs, live in nice houses, and drive nice cars are somehow *better people *than people who live in cardboard boxes or at the homeless shelter?
Where in the current Republican discourse is the compassion that says, “The poor, the homeless, the huddled masses, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, etc. are also human beings beloved of God and deserving of our care.” Where is the empathy, the safety net, heck: the love?
Let’s not stray too far from the notion of ROOTS in my thread title. I’m not saying that any politician would have the balls to come out and say-- for one thing,this notion is likely buried deep in his/her unconscious where the sun don’t shine-- “If God valued poor people, he wouldn’t have made them poor. And it’s not up to us to throw them a lifeline. I (or my father, grandfather, great-grandfather) made it, and they can make it the same way. They don’t *deserve *their community’s help.” But their actions and policies shout this loud and clear. And they call it Sound Economic Policy to give it a *conscious *justification, which masks its religious/philosophical basis.
The Medicaidsituation in Kentucky is just one example. If you’ve had your eyes and ears open for the last dozen years, you’ll have seen many more examples.
Ok… I’m just out the door, but I’m sure flaws in my thinking will be readily and kindly pointed out, and that’s what I want: a discussion.
Do Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon ring a bell? All evangelicals and all Calvinists. Calvinists believe people are “elected” but people *become * regenerate through the preaching of the Word which necessitates outreach. Calvinism was fundamental is shaping Protestant and thus evangelical theology and culture even if most American evangelicals nowadays do not hold explicitly Calvinist views.
As to the OP’s question, certain roots of modern American conservatism can be traced to Calvinist theology (although as my professor notes in his excellent Albion’s Seed, New England Puritan culture was relatively egalitarian and collectivist compared to the other major English-derived regional cultures in the United States, early on rejecting titles of aristocracy, establishing the first public education system in America, and producing a relatively socioeconomically egalitarian society) but this was heavily tempered by the development of the more recent Enlightenment and Victorian derived ideologies of classical liberalism, Smithian capitalism, and individualism. Of course this is a two-way street as many politically conservative evangelicals sought to find theological justifications for their politics especially with the rise of socialism and reformist politics. The sort of simple-minded prosperity theology of professional charlatans such as Osteen and T.D. Jakes are far removed from the sober thought of the Calvinist theologians.
That’s why I said “roots.” To make it even simpler, the “prosperity theology” (excellent term) of these professional Christians does not tell them to love and care for the poor.
Everything you’re saying is absolutely true.