Decency

[MoreCoffee]

Accumulating wealth is a goal that many people have. The methods used to accumulate wealth can be quite burdensome for employees. Families suffer from having their father, mother, or both working long exhausting hours for inadequate wages. This is not what the gospel teaches Christian business owners to do. Yet many business owners say that they are Christians wile they have exploited their workers, declared bankruptcy, found way to reduce their own tax burden while extracting as much tax benefits and government subsidies as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTAE5m3ZO2E

 

[Josiah]

On the one hand, materialism is wrong.... selfishness is wrong... For companies, for governments, for persons.

On the other hand, working long and hard is not wrong. I'm SURE the average person in the USA or Australia works FAR fewer hours per week (and FAR less physically hard) than the people did in Jesus' day, yet I don't recall Jesus stating that it's a sin to work more than 40 hours per week or to sweat at work or to get dirty working.

And I think the average person probably makes FAR more money working (in terms of purchasing power) than people did in Jesus' day. I don't recall Jesus saying that the average wage must permit a house of 2500 square feet filled with electronic wonders and equipped with central heat and AC and with a pension and health care.... I suspect the average worker in the USA or Australia gains far, far, far more from working far, far, far less than those in the Holy Lands in the First Century, and yet I don't recall Jesus demanding workers get a 10,000% raise.

As far as companies using the "take breaks" the government wills to give them, I see nothing wrong with that. The government creates the (typically very complex) tax codes on purpose. Where does Jesus say, "Pay MORE taxes than the Romans are requiring of you..... if it asks for X, give them X times 2." I don't see that.


My view....


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

I do see where we are to be our brothers keeper and I also see where it says thatit is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, I also know that greed is not good nor is anything that takes the place of God and for many today that god is money and we all know it. Riches themselves are not bad, how we view or use it can be good or bad

 

[MoreCoffee]

Interesting replies.

What are your thoughts on work then, how ought one to regard working conditions and regulations to keep working conditions safe, comfortable, and accommodating to the needs of employees?

 

[IACOBVS]

On the one hand, materialism is wrong.... selfishness is wrong... For companies, for governments, for persons.

On the other hand, working long and hard is not wrong. I'm SURE the average person in the USA or Australia works FAR fewer hours per week (and FAR less physically hard) than the people did in Jesus' day, yet I don't recall Jesus stating that it's a sin to work more than 40 hours per week or to sweat at work or to get dirty working.

And I think the average person probably makes FAR more money working (in terms of purchasing power) than people did in Jesus' day. I don't recall Jesus saying that the average wage must permit a house of 2500 square feet filled with electronic wonders and equipped with central heat and AC and with a pension and health care.... I suspect the average worker in the USA or Australia gains far, far, far more from working far, far, far less than those in the Holy Lands in the First Century, and yet I don't recall Jesus demanding workers get a 10,000% raise.

As far as companies using the "take breaks" the government wills to give them, I see nothing wrong with that. The government creates the (typically very complex) tax codes on purpose. Where does Jesus say, "Pay MORE taxes than the Romans are requiring of you..... if it asks for X, give them X times 2." I don't see that.


My view....


- Josiah

However, Jesus was quite clear about helping the poor. One would think it would be a given that that would include giving them a decent living wage. And just because the working conditions and financial state of average workers in Jesus' day were really bad, it doesn't follow that just because things aren't as bad for workers today, that it's an excuse to let modern employers off the hook to do better.

Also, those breaks that the government wills to give to corporations are won through the lobbying of those same powerful corporations ... and in many countries, the US being one of them, those wealthy corporations fill the election coffers of the members of the government who give them the breaks. Thankfully, that has been banned in Canada at the federal level and in most of the provinces ... British Columbia being the glaring hold-out.

 

[IACOBVS]

View attachment 884

 

[MoreCoffee]

View attachment 884

I watched Galbraith's The Age of Uncertainty, it was fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2UuZUPZA4vjnPDGBe6HMHzep0aeUbRbH

 

[tango]

However, Jesus was quite clear about helping the poor. One would think it would be a given that that would include giving them a decent living wage. And just because the working conditions and financial state of average workers in Jesus' day were really bad, it doesn't follow that just because things aren't as bad for workers today, that it's an excuse to let modern employers off the hook to do better.

Also, those breaks that the government wills to give to corporations are won through the lobbying of those same powerful corporations ... and in many countries, the US being one of them, those wealthy corporations fill the election coffers of the members of the government who give them the breaks. Thankfully, that has been banned in Canada at the federal level and in most of the provinces ... British Columbia being the glaring hold-out.

This is one of those cases where striking a balance is a matter of individual conscience.

The Bible is clear that a worker is worthy of his wage. It doesn't say what that wage should be. It also doesn't say that one job, however menial in nature, should merit a high enough salary to keep someone in a large house with a new car and lots of gizmos and doodads.

Paul was also clear that "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat" (2Th 3:10) (two notes here, firstly it means there's no obligation to feed a man who can't be bothered to provide for himself but the "will not work" doesn't mean that those who are incapable of providing for themselves should be left to starve).

Individual welfare can so easily become a centrally managed institution that destroys hope, paying people to do nothing while sapping them of any desire to better themselves. Corporate welfare is just as bad when all it does is allow companies to stay in business when anything remotely resembling market forces would force them to adapt or go out of business.

Of course, as with so many other things, you get to live your life according to your own conscience and will answer before God for how you handled the resources entrusted to you (as we all will). So much political campaigning these days is little more than trying to force other people to live according to my conscience, and it should surprise nobody that people resist that sort of thing.

 

[IACOBVS]

This is one of those cases where striking a balance is a matter of individual conscience.

The Bible is clear that a worker is worthy of his wage. It doesn't say what that wage should be. It also doesn't say that one job, however menial in nature, should merit a high enough salary to keep someone in a large house with a new car and lots of gizmos and doodads.

Paul was also clear that "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat" (2Th 3:10) (two notes here, firstly it means there's no obligation to feed a man who can't be bothered to provide for himself but the "will not work" doesn't mean that those who are incapable of providing for themselves should be left to starve).

Individual welfare can so easily become a centrally managed institution that destroys hope, paying people to do nothing while sapping them of any desire to better themselves. Corporate welfare is just as bad when all it does is allow companies to stay in business when anything remotely resembling market forces would force them to adapt or go out of business.

Of course, as with so many other things, you get to live your life according to your own conscience and will answer before God for how you handled the resources entrusted to you (as we all will). So much political campaigning these days is little more than trying to force other people to live according to my conscience, and it should surprise nobody that people resist that sort of thing.

Caring for the poor is not a matter of striking a balance. Jesus was pretty clear about what we should do.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Interesting replies.

What are your thoughts on work then, how ought one to regard working conditions and regulations to keep working conditions safe, comfortable, and accommodating to the needs of employees?

How one ought to regard them is how industry has said to regard them, as laid out in the guidelines of that industry. I don't think that workers are left without recourse if those standards of safety, comfort, and accommodation are not met. Businesses are not entities unto themselves, but have to follow regulatory guidelines. It's just another area where, when one attempts to insert Christian mores into civic matters, it just muddies the waters.

 

[NewCreation435]

Accumulating wealth is a goal that many people have. The methods used to accumulate wealth can be quite burdensome for employees. Families suffer from having their father, mother, or both working long exhausting hours for inadequate wages. This is not what the gospel teaches Christian business owners to do. Yet many business owners say that they are Christians wile they have exploited their workers, declared bankruptcy, found way to reduce their own tax burden while extracting as much tax benefits and government subsidies as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTAE5m3ZO2E

a lot of people say that they are christians and aren't really walking with Christ. The example of this is the parable of the Sheep and the Goats that Jesus tells in Matthew 25:31-46 where he says to those on his right that they will take their inheritance because they saw when he was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick and in prison and they took care of him. They acted out their faith to the least of these. This is an example of how faith without works is dead.

 

[NewCreation435]

Interesting replies.

What are your thoughts on work then, how ought one to regard working conditions and regulations to keep working conditions safe, comfortable, and accommodating to the needs of employees?

I don't ask those I supervise to do something I wouldn't be able or willing to do. I try to treat other people the way I would want to be treated.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How one ought to regard them is how industry has said to regard them, as laid out in the guidelines of that industry. I don't think that workers are left without recourse if those standards of safety, comfort, and accommodation are not met. Businesses are not entities unto themselves, but have to follow regulatory guidelines. It's just another area where, when one attempts to insert Christian mores into civic matters, it just muddies the waters.

Anti-slavery and anti-child-labour laws have their genesis in Christianity and if my memory serves me well the union movement has its roots in Christianity too thus many laws that we have in Australia (and likely most other western nations) appear to be the fruit of Christian beginnings. Mixing law and Christianity need not be (and generally isn't) a bad thing. What can make it bad is when matters reserved to family and individual decisions in the scriptures and teaching of the Church become objects for power-desiring law makers who seek to control what they have no sound and sustainable argument to control.

in several European countries (e.g. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland), religious unions have existed for decades. These unions typically distanced themselves from some of the doctrines of orthodox Marxism, such as the preference of atheism and from rhetoric suggesting that employees' interests always are in conflict with those of employers. Some of these Christian unions have had some ties to centrist or conservative political movements and some do not regard strikes as acceptable political means for achieving employees' goals.[2] In Poland, the biggest trade union Solidarity emerged as an anti-communist movement with religious nationalist overtones[60] and today it supports the right-wing Law and Justice party. - (source)​

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Anti-slavery and anti-child-labour laws have their genesis in Christianity and if my memory serves me well the union movement has its roots in Christianity too thus many laws that we have in Australia (and likely most other western nations) appear to be the fruit of Christian beginnings. Mixing law and Christianity need not be (and generally isn't) a bad thing. What can make it bad is when matters reserved to family and individual decisions in the scriptures and teaching of the Church become objects for power-desiring law makers who eek to control what they have no sound and sustainable argument to control

I guess when I mention the waters getting muddied, I'm coming from the Western mind-set where Christian ideals (presently) and civic law generally aren't mixing. Whatever my feelings about same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, end of life planning, etc., these laws and regulations exist in the civic realm. Christians lobby hard against these things, sometimes to absurd levels, making a mockery of the faith. But they exist, it's law, and those that wish access have that right under the law.
I wouldn't foresee that same type of idiocy as it comes to fair wage, worker's rights, and safety; but I think any 'lobbying' efforts on my part would be more from a position of fairness under the law and human decency - perhaps an expression of my faith, rather than any opportunity to "pound the pulpit" as it were.

 

[psalms 91]

I guess when I mention the waters getting muddied, I'm coming from the Western mind-set where Christian ideals (presently) and civic law generally aren't mixing. Whatever my feelings about same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, end of life planning, etc., these laws and regulations exist in the civic realm. Christians lobby hard against these things, sometimes to absurd levels, making a mockery of the faith. But they exist, it's law, and those that wish access have that right under the law.
I wouldn't foresee that same type of idiocy as it comes to fair wage, worker's rights, and safety; but I think any 'lobbying' efforts on my part would be more from a position of fairness under the law and human decency - perhaps an expression of my faith, rather than any opportunity to "pound the pulpit" as it were.

The waters were always muddied as they should be. We were a christian nation founded with christian ideals and laws based on the English system which has its roots in chriostianity. To deny our obligation to lefislate according to our faith is a mistake. When something is in opposition to our beleifs then we have a duty to try to change that. Otherwise we are just silent and we know that when good men are silent what can happen

 

[MoreCoffee]

There ought to be separation between church and state but that means that the state ought not seek to be in charge of the church and that church ought not to seek to be in charge of the state. Lobby efforts made by church members are fine and sometimes praiseworthy. Laws about equal rights (under the civil law) and anti-discrimination are fine and sometimes praiseworthy. Church and state ought to exert pressure to improve one another. But that means that there is always going to be some over-reach on both sides.

 

[tango]

Caring for the poor is not a matter of striking a balance. Jesus was pretty clear about what we should do.

Jesus told us to care for the poor, not vote for a government that will force Someone Else to care for the poor. There are also lots of different ways of caring for "the poor", simply because "the poor" is a vague term that encompasses people from all sorts of totally different situations. One might need a short-term hand-up, another might need help budgeting, still another might need help with something related (e.g. insulating a house so it's cheaper to keep warm/cool), another might need to use their resources more effectively (many of us probably know someone who complains they don't have any money yet can usually be found in a bar somewhere), while others may simply need a bit of extra cash on a day-to-day basis while they get back on their feet.

Frankly the person who simply chooses not to work (who is clearly distinct from someone who would love to work but is incapable of doing so, or who is trying to find work without success) because it's easier to claim state handouts doesn't deserve anything. Welfare as a lifestyle choice isn't anything I'd recognise as "caring for the poor".