95 Theses Redux

Accumulation of Wealth and Proliferation of Poverty

(Reasons for the Growing Gap Between Wealth and Poverty – Repercussions and Solutions)

In 1492, while Columbus was “discovering America” in order to gain riches for European monarchs and himself, Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, a teenager and a member of one of the most influential and wealthy families in the world, moved to Rome to be educated. On March 9, 1513, Giovanni, who was then a deacon, was elected Pope, the first of four popes elected from the Medici family. Six days later he was ordained priest and consecrated as bishop on the next day. He was crowned Pope Leo X on March 19, 1513 at the age of 37 to become arguably the most powerful man in the world.

(During this time, it would not be difficult to envision that 1% of the people in the world controlled 99% of the wealth.)

Within two years after being crowned Pope, Leo X had squandered all the savings of Pope Julius II, his predecessor, which precipitated a financial crisis within the church.

In attempts to recover funds, he sold many items of value belonging to the Church and eventually resorted to selling “indulgences” to sinners. In Catholic theology, an “indulgence” is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment (purgatory) due for sins which have already been forgiven. It is in the form of a piece of paper from the Church. The concept of selling indulgences to poverty-ridden church members in order to raise money for the Church was considered controversial.

In 1516, Johann Tetzel, a Dominican Friar and papal commissioner for indulgences, was sent to Germany by the Roman Catholic Church to sell indulgences to raise money to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
Alleged abuses in selling and granting indulgences were a major point of contention in the “Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”, aka the “95 Theses” which Martin Luther nailed to the Door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517.

The Theses were written as an invitation for scholarly discussions and begins as follows:

“Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter. In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen”

Examples of the Theses:

Thesis 1: Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite (Editors Note:”repent” or “do penance”), willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

Thesis 2: This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
…
Thesis 86: “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?”

(Ed Note: Uh-oh! This thesis (Thesis 86) angered Pope Leo X so much that he essentially went to battle over this particular Thesis, thereby changing the course of history)

Throughout history, our religions have been valuable in many areas; providing food and shelter for those in need, healing and solace for those in pain, and a social network to connect people with like beliefs. In some cases, such as took place in the early 1500’s, it could be argued that religion can lose its way, and in most cases it is self-correcting. In the case of Martin Luther, the primary contributing factor to the splitting of the church was the perception that wealth was being accumulated by the powerful, wealthy leader of the faith by extracting money from the poor in exchange for limiting the time spent in purgatory after their demise. This situation, to Doctor Martin Luther, was unfair and, well, un-Christian-like.

What would Martin Luther have to say in if he lived in the US today? Perhaps instead of disputing the efficacy and power of indulgences, he might dispute the power and efficacy of Big Government and Big Business, especially with respect to its impact on fairness, justice, sustainability (of our planet) and the propagation of poverty as opposed to the eradication of poverty.

It is time to use critical thinking to challenge what is taking place in a meaningful dialog. However, unlike the issues of the 1500’s, today the scholarly discussions should focus on the following questions:

What is the current state of humanity in the US and Globally?
Where are we as a group of people?
How did we get to our current state?
How does our lifestyle compare to others?
Is this the current state in which we want to be?
Where do Americans want to be in the next 10 to 25 years?
We need to discuss these things.
How can we get there?” Let’s follow Martin Luther’s approach…

Click on the link below to see what I think should be discussed today in the style that Doctor Martin Luther used in 1517.

95 Theses 500 years later

YIKES ! Did Adam Smith say THAT?

One of my goals is to read a classic every year.  While I don’t succeed every year in reaching my goal, I come close.  Two years ago, my classic was The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.  Since it is “widely credited with laying the theoretical and philosophical foundation for capitalism” (according to the back cover of my Barnes and Noble edition), I thought it would make for interesting reading.  Besides, I wanted to see how Adam Smith described the “invisible hand”.

Throughout his work, which was published in 1776, Adam Smith consistently referenced justice and equality in society, concern for the impact on consumers as the most important criteria when discussing legislation, revenue, taxes, profit, the rich, the poor and the wealth of nations.  It is a great discussion of how flat the world was in 1776.

If he were witnessing the economies of today, I think he would be appalled at the level of cooperation between lobbyists and Congress and the amount of legislation that favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

Also, if he were to observe how our health system operates and how our food supply affects our bodies and our environment, he would recommend a public policy and accompanying legislation that:

• rewards conservatism of natural resources
• taxes the rich proportionately more than the poor
• reduces debt
• has tighter controls over banks (separating them from speculation houses)

Here are some examples from The Wealth of Nations, starting with the “Invisible Hand”:

Book Four, Chapter Two: Of Restraints Upon the Importation From Foreign Countries of Such Goods as Can be Produced at Home:

“As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can.  He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the pubic interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only is own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention.  Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it.  By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.  I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.  It is no affection, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.”

If I can be so bold as to summarize the thoughts, I think he is saying as we go about our business trying to make a living through our labor in our own country, we indirectly sometimes benefit society without our knowledge.  However, if we use our labor to create things with the primary intention of promoting the public good, it’s usually a waste of time.  Then I think it becomes an option for government to help run the business if it is in the public interests to do so.

Adam Smith did not use the term Laissez-faire, even though it was widely used during his lifetime.

I was surprised at some of the things Adam Smith did say in The Wealth of Nations.  Here is what he says about the Mercantile System.  While he appears to agree that there is a lot of legislation that restricts the flow of capital, when compared to the legislation for special interest groups, they are relatively minor.

Book Four, Chapter Eight – Conclusions of the Mercantile System:

“ It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful, that is principally encouraged in our mercantile system.  That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent, is too often, either neglected, or oppressed…

“The severity of many of the laws which have been enacted for the security of the revenue is very justly complained of, as imposing heavy penalties upon actions which, antecedent to the statues that declared them to be crimes, had always been understood to be innocent.  But the cruelest of our revenue laws, I will venture to affirm, are mild and gentle, in comparison of some of those which clamour of our merchants and manufacturers have extorted from the legislature, for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood…

These considerations, however, will not only justify the absolute prohibition of the exportation of wool.  But they will fully justify the imposition of a considerable tax upon that exportation.

To hurt in any degree the interest of anyone order of citizens, for no other purpose but to promote that of some other, is evidently contrary to that justice and equality of treatment which the sovereign owes to all the different orders of his subjects.  But the prohibition certainly hurts, in some degree, the interest of the growers of wool, for no other purpose but to promote that of the manufacturers.

…

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production, and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.  The maxim is so perfectly self-evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it.  But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer, and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

Here is what he says about banks getting involved in speculation.  I think he predicted our economic disaster of 2008 as accurate as anybody:

Book 5, Chapter one, Of the Public Works and Institutions which are necessary for facilitating particular branches of commerce:

“Though the principles of the banking trade may appear somewhat abstruse, the practice is capable of being reduced to strict rules.  To depart upon any occasion from these rules, in consequence of some flattering speculation of extraordinary gain, is almost always extremely dangerous, and frequently fatal to the banking company which attempts it.”

Adam Smith weighs in on one of the hottest topics in American politics today, class warfare between the haves and have-nots.    Here is what he says about equity of rent and taxes between rich and poor:

Book Five, Chapter Two, Taxes upon the Rent of Houses:

“A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps be any thing very unreasonable.  It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Some things never change. On enormous debts Adam Smith warns of the dangers of enormous debts.  I think he rolled over several times in his grave when our country initiated two wars and cut revenues in the first part of this century:

Book Five, Chapter Three, Of Public Debts

“The progress of the enormous debts which as present oppress, and will in the long-run probably ruin, all the great nations of Europe, has been pretty uniform.”

On proportion of taxes paid relative to protection provided:

Book Five, Chapter Two.  Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society:

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Zimmie thinks Adam Smith was very consumer-oriented and did not hold  high regard for merchants.  He considered them a necessary evil.  Since Zimmie was a merchant for many years, he was hurt by the references, but recognized the truth behind the statement.

Josephus, Eusebius, and the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Bits and Pieces of Religious History

While attending Purdue University in Civil Engineering, we were required to take some non-engineering classes.  I chose to take a class on the Philosophy of Religion.

During that class, the professor mentioned Rudolf Bultmann and some of his work in the early 1900’s which included studies of the historical Jesus.  That is when I first heard the term “demystification” being used.  As I recall, it was an attempt to separate the man from the myths surrounding Jesus.

Forty years later, I found out that he was not alone when my wife showed me her book called the Jefferson Bible, which essentially is his reading of the Bible without the mythical/mystical components.

As I began to investigate the source of these doubts in the mystical parts of Jesus, I found the source of these doubts came within 300 years of the birth of Jesus (The Church History, Eusebius).  When one throws the Dead Sea Scrolls into the mix, one finds themselves in a time period rich with politics, religion, and history.

It appears the most reliable historian of the time is Flavius Josephus, who is referenced frequently by Eusebius, the “historian” of early Christianity.

While traveling to Grand Rapids, MI, I was fortunate to see the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit and read quite a bit about their origins.

Tying the Bits and Pieces Together

There is a contemporary author, Robert Eisenman, who wrote the controversial book, James, the Brother of Jesus.  While I may not agree with all the conclusions of the author, I thank him for providing me a structured methodology from which to evaluate religion and history.

James, the Brother of Jesus, provides a rich comparison of what various texts say about religious activities within the first 300 years.  Those texts include:

The Bible

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Works of Josephus

Damascus Document

The Church History

From the discussions contained in James, the Brother of Jesus, one will look at the early documents, including the Bible and the Church History, through different eyes.

A large part of the work crystallizes the  ideology clash between Paul and James.  I conclude after reading various works, that James was the Christian leader for the Hebrews, while Paul was the Christian evangelist for the Gentiles.

At the end of the day, if nothing else, the reader will ask how can James, the brother of Jesus, be so powerful according to Josephus’ works and Paul’s letter to the Galatians, yet be so marginalized by Christianity in general?

Someone has some explaining to do!

The pursuit of answers to the questions raised has been rewarding and revealing.   Future posts will provide more details on Pauline Christianity vs. Hebrew Christianity and Eastern vs. Western Christianity.

Faith begins when there is no empirical evidence to support causality

I’d like to share an illuminating moment for me that took place during a Statistics class I was taking at Rickenbacker AFB.  My Canadian instructor told a story about one of his professors that had been working on a project for many years which contained a hypothesis that he was trying to prove.  He structured the work showing how statistics would prove or disprove his notion that Action A caused Result B.  For a period of years (which coincided with my professor’s years as a student) the professor kept his students abreast of his work.

As the years passed by, the students became more knowledgeable about statistics and were able to challenge each other’s work.  Eventually, they were able to challenge the professor’s work as well.

One day, the professor explained to the class how Action A causes Result B.  The students agreed that Result B followed the actions of Action A, but they challenged the professor because they could see no empirical evidence that Action A actually caused Result B.

The professor defended his position by explaining his many reasons for believing that Action A caused Result B.  Each time the students responded by asking for the empirical evidence that supports the argument.

Finally, in the heat of frustration, the professor slammed a large book on his desk with a BANG and yelled at the students:

“F**k the empirical evidence, sometimes you just gotta believe!”

THUS BEGINS THE ADVENTURE