From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:04:10 -0500, Ric Locke   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.composition:   
      
   > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:38:18 +0100, Jonathan L Cunningham   
   > wrote:   
      
   [...]   
      
   >> Yes, I was wondering how "love of money" came to be   
   >> "money".   
      
   >> That's a bit like taking "paedophilia is evil" and   
   >> concluding that therefore children are all evil. Or   
   >> blaming a woman for inciting a man to rape her.   
      
   >> The fallacy is a bit more obvious in the last two   
   >> examples: why isn't it equally obvious when applied to   
   >> money? Curious, eh?   
      
   > It's thanks to generations of the greedy attempting to   
   > confuse the issue.   
      
   > Christ's teaching is absolutely clear: You're supposed to   
   > be paying attention to getting to Heaven, and worldly   
   > things are a distraction.   
      
   That's one view of it; taken to extremes it leads to ascetic   
   anchorism.  It's hardly the only view, however.   
      
   [...]   
      
   > But if you want to get money to support your schemes and   
   > unable or unwilling to earn it -- that is, if you're a   
   > thief, a Prince, or a Socialist --   
      
   Whether a thief, a prince, or for that matter a priest or   
   minister earns his wealth is a matter of opinion and depends   
   on the specifics in each case.   
      
   > you must of of necessity take it away from somebody else,   
   > and that has to be justified somehow. After all, we all   
   > know it's bad to take things without compensation, right?   
   > And if you're self-defined in your own mind as   
   > existentially Good, you can't simply rob people. The   
   > solution is straightforward: redefining "evil".   
      
   > "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a   
   > needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."   
   > If you ignore the actual content and context of the   
   > teaching, it's easy to conclude that since Good people go   
   > to Heaven and Evil people do not, and the rich man cannot   
   > go to Heaven, it must be because he is Evil. And we all   
   > know that it's OK, even virtuous, to be unkind to Evil   
   > People -- therefore robbing The Rich is not only OK, it   
   > is the duty of the Virtuous. So the Good Prince can rob   
   > the filthy Jews, and the Good Socialist can rob the   
   > filthy Capitalists, and congratulate themselves on their   
   > Goodness.   
      
   And the Good Capitalist can rob the stupid and lazy poor   
   ('cause if they weren't stupid and lazy, they wouldn't be   
   poor, and the wouldn't let themselves be robbed, right?).   
      
   Since you can play this game with just about any target,   
   it's a pretty pointless game that does little to support   
   your explanation.  And the explanation itself is a real   
   stretch except perhaps as a minor contributing factor; a   
   much more plausible starting point is the simple fact that   
   in general wealth confers power, and the powerful are likely   
   to be seen -- rightly or wrongly -- as being responsible for   
   events and conditions.   
      
   > The fact that it totally inverts the actual teaching is   
   > irrelevant.   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)