Blog author: jcarter
by on Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Dostoevsky: Fear the Christian Socialist
Chris Banescu, The Voice

“The socialist who is a Christian is more to be feared than the socialist who is an atheist.”

Study: Obamacare could cause 1 million low-income Americans to move from work to welfare
James Pethokoukis, AEI Ideas

A new study suggests President Obama’s Affordable Care Act might have yet another huge and negative unintended consequence: if low-income adults can get health insurance through Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, they are less likely to try and get a job — or keep a job.

ACLU vs. Gideons’ Bibles
Rory Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom

Alliance Defending Freedom sends letter to Ken. school districts advising them of Gideons’ freedom to distribute Bibles.

The Price of Equality
Anne Bradley, Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics

We are all part of the body of Christ, but we have distinct contributions to make that contribute to the overall flourishing of mankind. When we focus on what God created us to do and then trade with others who have different gifts, we are all able thrive better than we could on our own.

  • Curt Day

    Regarding Dostoevsky’s comment, the question I have is why? There is no reason give in the article linked to or in any further comment by Dostoevsky as to why we should fear the Christian Socialist. In addition, his warning speaks of socialists as a monolith. I have read many socialists who totally reject the Soviet Union version as being socialist at all– I hasten to add that that is not the view of all socialists.

    So without an argued reason why we should fear the Christian Socialist, to follow his advice would be the same as to obey a command.

    For an opposing viewpoint to Dostoevsky’s command, I offer a link below to a blog post that describes how a Christian fundamentalist like myself became a socialist too.

    http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-christian-fundamentalist-became.html

    • http://www.acton.org/ John Couretas

      Perhaps Dostoevsky prophetically warned us of this because he foresaw how socialism/collectivism, under the smokescreen of a phony Christian solidarity, would lead to poverty, tyranny, slavery, degradation and death. Especially he saw how this would play out in Russia, which came to be known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

      Of course, Curt, you’ll haul out the hobby horse of non-monolithic socialism which only exists, apparently, in blog posts and comments. As for the concrete end products of real socialism, we have plenty of history to study.

      I’ll side with Dostoevsky, Orwell (paradoxically a socialist himself) and JPII on this question against you, Curt. Any day.

      It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of. — George Orwell, in a review of The Road to Serfdom (1944)

      The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency. — Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (1991)

      • Curt Day

        John,
        How many socialists have you read?

        Seems like your note, along with the original post does nothing more than show bias and a lack of exposure. And, btw, sans collectivism, the U.S. has one of the largest, if not largest, wealth disparities in the industrial world. So it seems that the pejorative socialism of the former U.S.S.R is not the only poverty spreader in the world.

        And, btw, collectivism does not contradict democracy but rather is a choice for any democratic body to take.

        • http://www.acton.org/ John Couretas

          Orwell, as I indicated above, for starters …

          • Curt Day

            John,

            And you noticed how Orwell contrasted Democracy and collectivism. So the question becomes, what socialists have you read and you do not need to include Orwell because you already mentioned him.

            To save you some time and eye strain, the link below is to a talk about a part of socialism.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

          • http://www.acton.org/ John Couretas

            It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly
            often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on
            the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish
            Inquisitors never dreamt of. — George Orwell, in a review of The Road
            to Serfdom (1944)

          • Curt Day

            Yours is an assertion by Orwell but it is an assertion that is sans proof. Logically speaking, if some form of collectivism is the desire of the majority of the people, then it would contradict Orwell’s statement. So the question is what are the grounds for Orwell’s statements?

            And btw, we already have socialism in the U.S. and it has nothing to do with Obama. We have a few worker co-ops that are run democratically. Each one is an example of socialism. I say this because socialism’s first concern is about the redistribution of power to the workers and we could include all stakeholders and even the masses.

        • Marc Vander Maas

          Democratic bodies are perfectly capable of making really stupid and counterproductive choices.