Feed on
Posts
Comments

Holy Profit

“The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well. When a firm makes a profit, this means that productive factors have been properly employed and corresponding human needs have been duly satisfied.

But profitability is not the only indicator of a firm’s condition. It is possible for the financial accounts to be in order, and yet for the people — who make up the firm’s most valuable asset — to be humiliated and their dignity offended. Besides being morally inadmissible, this will eventually have negative repercussions on the firm’s economic efficiency.

In fact, the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society.

Profit is a regulator of the life of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral factors must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least equally important for the life of a business.”

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus annus 1991

Tags: ,

The Old Testament lays down in Exodus the Ten Commandments as given to Moses, the injunction in Leviticus to love our neighbour as ourselves and generally the importance of observing a strict code of law. The New Testament is a record of the Incarnation, the teachings of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Again we have the emphasis on loving our neighbour as ourselves and to “Do-as-you-would-be-done-by”.

I believe that by taking together these key elements from the Old and New Testaments, we gain: a view of the universe, a proper attitude to work, and principles to shape economic and social life.

We are told we must work and use our talents to create wealth. “If a man will not work he shall not eat” wrote St. Paul to the Thessalonians. Indeed, abundance rather than poverty has a legitimacy which derives from the very nature of Creation.

Nevertheless, the Tenth Commandment—Thou shalt not covet—recognises that making money and owning things could become selfish activities. But it is not the creation of wealth that is wrong but love of money for its own sake. The spiritual dimension comes in deciding what one does with the wealth. How could we respond to the many calls for help, or invest for the future, or support the wonderful artists and craftsmen whose work also glorifies God, unless we had first worked hard and used our talents to create the necessary wealth? And remember the woman with the alabaster jar of ointment.

None of this, of course, tells us exactly what kind of political and social institutions we should have. On this point, Christians will very often genuinely disagree, though it is a mark of Christian manners that they will do so with courtesy and mutual respect. What is certain, however, is that any set of social and economic arrangements which is not founded on the acceptance of individual responsibility will do nothing but harm.

We are all responsible for our own actions. We can’t blame society if we disobey the law. We simply can’t delegate the exercise of mercy and generosity to others. The politicians and other secular powers should strive by their measures to bring out the good in people and to fight down the bad: but they can’t create the one or abolish the other. They can only see that the laws encourage the best instincts and convictions of the people, instincts and convictions which I’m convinced are far more deeply rooted than is often supposed.

Nowhere is this more evident than the basic ties of the family which are at the heart of our society and are the very nursery of civic virtue. And it is on the family that we in government build our own policies for welfare, education and care.

You recall that Timothy was warned by St. Paul that anyone who neglects to provide for his own house (meaning his own family) has disowned the faith.

We must recognise that modern society is infinitely more complex than that of Biblical times and of course new occasions teach new duties. In our generation, the only way we can ensure that no-one is left without sustenance, help or opportunity, is to have laws to provide for health and education, pensions for the elderly, succour for the sick and disabled. But intervention by the State must never become so great that it effectively removes personal responsibility.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 21 May 1988. Speech to General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

Tags: ,

Dictatorships always fall – sooner or later. The Arab world consists of various kinds of dictatorships, where Islam is a basis in the legal systems.

The desire for freedom is shared by all people, regardless of race, religion or gender. Therefore, it is no wonder that we now witness demonstrations and revolts in non-free Muslim countries. It is our responsibility to support people and movements who fight for human rights and freedoms, also in the Arab world and other Muslim countries.

But the overthrow of a dictatorship does not necessarily lead to democracy and human rights. We know that from both the French Revolution a few hundred years ago and the Iranian revolution a few decades ago.

A Saddam Hussein might be overthrown and the Taliban may be driven out from the corridors of power, but what comes next? In Iraq there was a democratic and free election, but the constitution is based on Islam. The same applies to Afghanistan. Thus, you can pick a president, but you may end up in prison and risk being killed if you leave Islam.

The process of democratization is much more than allowing political parties and holding general elections. It’s also about an independent judiciary, free press and freedom of religion.

Religious freedom may sometimes be guaranteed in a constitution, but contradicted by other laws and regulations. In Muslim countries religious freedom is subject to Sharia law which in practice means no or very limited religious freedom.

Democratic principles must also be practiced by families, clans, neighborhoods and communities. This is the big problem in the Muslim world, even in secular Turkey.

How many of the Egyptian protesters – who rightfully are demanding freedom – are ready to permit sons, daughters, neighbors and others to leave Islam without fear of intimidation, harassment and persecution?

Religious freedom is often a litmus test of democracy and human rights. In a true democracy media, neighbors and authorities allow people to express unpopular opinions. But they should also accommodate the right to practice a different religion, to express it in public with others, and the right to change religion. Since 95 percent or so of the world’s population adhere to some form of religious belief, this right is not peripheral but absolutely central.

Furthermore, democracy and peaceful relations within and between states rely on respect for other religions and the respect for other peoples and states to exist. There may be free elections in Tunisia and Egypt, and other Arab regimes may introduce some reforms, but will they accept Israel’s right to exist? Will Egyptian television continue with its blatant anti-Semitic propaganda? Will Coptic Christians be permitted to build and renovate churches? Will those who have left Islam have the right to change religion on their identity cards?

The overthrow of a dictator does not create democracy. General elections are no guarantee of human rights. Free access to the Internet is not the same as the protection of minorities and religious freedom for all.

Both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have publicly expressed a limited definition of religious freedom – the right to worship, which is not the same as the more extensive rights included in freedom of religion. Freedom of worship is prevalent in Muslim countries, freedom of religion is not. This does not bode well for the long term fight for freedom in the Arab world.

The peoples of the Arab world have a right to democracy and religious freedom, but we must not be naive about the long road that lies ahead.

Tags: , ,

Freedom of worship is NOT the same as freedom of religion. This is not hairsplitting semantics or personal preferences.

It is a matter of life and death in some countries. Thus it is of grave concern that Obama, Clinton and Cameron seemingly prefer using freedom of worship.

Let me explain: Freedom of religion includes the right to have a faith, to manifest it and propagate for it, alone or together with others, also in the public arena. It also gives the right to change beliefs and religious affiliation. This is what democracies would adhere to.

Freedom of worship is a definition practiced in countries influenced by Islam. You may be allowed to be a Christian, but you mustn’t take it into the public arena or share your faith with others. If you are a Muslim you are free to be a Muslim and display it publically but you can’t leave Islam.

Question: What kind of freedom do you prefer? What kind of freedom should we fight for?

The Obama administration shuns freedom of religion and propagates freedom of worship.

PM David Cameron held a speech on February 5th, where he stated: “…I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them.  Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

Please be aware of this slippery slope. Watch out for what phrases politicians are using. It makes a huge difference, like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia on the one hand and Norway, New Zeeland and Germany on the other hand.

Take your pick: Freedom of religion or freedom of worship.

Tags: , ,

“Can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.

But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus annus 1991

Tags: , ,

« Newer Posts