Our old friends at PragerU just came out with a "was Jesus a socialist?" video that concludes with Jesus helping a homeless man become an entrepreneur with the aid of a wealthy investor.
Biblical interpretation isn't really our primary role, but perhaps something is amiss here.
It's hard to see this as anything other than a strained attempt to align religion with a secular political ideology (and, obviously, people do this on the left as well).
That's not good either for politics or for religion.
We're a non-sectarian org, but many of are members are committed Christians (and members of other faiths too!) who see the ASP as one way they can live out their faith in the public sphere.
That's a different thing than subordinating faith to partisanship.
Likewise, the political tradition we belong to, Christian Democracy, came from people who were attempting to apply Christian teachings about human dignity to modern political situations. We don't downplay that legacy.
But...
Having said that, please call us out if we ever try to tell you that Jesus definitely would have opened a worker's co-op with the lepers of Jerusalem.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The concentration of corporate power in a few hands is a big problem even if a few of those hands happen to be different colors.
It's not exactly a coincidence, either, that corporate America is increasingly enthusiastic for "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" at a time when economic inequality and insecurity (which disproportionately affects minority groups) is as bad as its been in decades.
A lot of you have probably suffered from less contact with family and friends this year during the pandemic, perhaps especially around the holidays.
Millions of Americans are right there with you. But for many of them, isolation is an everyday reality in the best of times,
One pre-election survey on the strength of Americans’ social networks found that nearly one in five Americans (17 percent) reported having no one they were close with, marking a 9 percentage point increase from 2013. Most of this was not due to the pandemic.
We have our disagreements with Rep. Omar, to put it mildly, but it's interesting that some conservatives are lashing out at this when she's only repeating a point here that Dwight Eisenhower (not exactly a radical socialist) made more than sixty years ago.
As Ike put it, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...This is not a way of life at all... Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
There's a lot of chatter about the so-called "Great Reset." Some of it is conspiracy theory.
One thing, though, is right out in the open: the pandemic has triggered one of the largest wealth transfers in American history. And it's not trickling down. It's shifting upwards.
Small and locally-owned businesses have been getting killed throughout the pandemic.
While business slowdowns were to some degree an inevitable result of fighting COVID, the fact remains that corporate giants are gobbling up market share as a result.
Millions of Americans are slipping into poverty. Millions are threatened with eviction. The federal and state governments' stopgap measures have helped, but many of those relief efforts are expiring.
Meanwhile, Amazon's stock price is up 75% this year.
There are real trade-offs involved in disease response strategies. We can debate those.
But not if we can't past the basic starting point that we have responsibilities to our neighbors and communities.
MAGA-conservatives are so focused on "owning the libs" that they don't see how their own attitudes are "liberal" in an almost cartoonish way: elevating individual selfishness above the common good.
In different ways, both of our ruling parties do this all the time.
So this happened: a senior US diplomat admits that the Washington bureaucracy was lying to President Trump in order to keep a larger US military presence in Syria.
The fact that this apparently worked does not speak especially well of the president.
The fact that it happened at all is an indictment of our foreign policy establishment.
Among our elites, there is a broad cross-party bias in favor of expansive US military commitments overseas. It is *deeply* baked into the conventional wisdom in policy circles, the State Department and other overseas agencies, and the military.