Without a strong faith in God and an equally strong spirit of asceticism, capitalism can easily become a tool for the desanctification of creation and the dehumanization of man. Unlike Socialism and communism, capitialism is not inherently desanctifying and dehmanizing, but it is not intrinsically holy either.

The notion of abundance and affluence as a hindrance to faith and a spiritual existence is not from the Left. It comes from Scripture, Christ Himself and the Fathers of the Faith.

What about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the beggar? The rich man ended up in Hades, while Lazarus ended up in Paradise.

Luke 16: 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Luke 6: 24 “But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. ”

John Chrysostom?

The poor man has one plea, his want and his standing in need: do not require anything else from him; but even if he is the most wicked of all men and is at a loss for his necessary sustenance, let us free him from hunger….

If it is possible for you, remember everything I have said. If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.

I’m really on your side, in a way. I want to keep my stuff! If the books and the Fathers are true, though, I’m not a very good man.

It is only in this century, and particularly in the years since World War II, that Americans have known an affluence that frees many of us from absorption with making a living, and it is in that same period that the decline in religion, which began centuries ago, reached its low point … It is difficult to imagine the constraints that could now be put in place to do the work that economic necessity and religion once did.

Isn’t this an argument against allowing people to acquire too much and of getting too comfortable with their riches? I say this as someone who has plenty of nice stuff (all of which I’ve paid for out of my own earnings), so I’m not arguing for anyone taking the things that I’m quite fond of! However, I’m not sure how one can reconcile the support for the limitless acquisition of wealth and goods with the notion that economic necessity is good for religious sentiment.

I think churches fill the community’s need to come together, do good, and share in spirituality. The government will never replace this need. As long as there is suffering in the world, as long as human beings place great value on life, there will be religion and there will be churches in kind.

Some of us do not affiliate with a religion because our philosophy is to reach out to one another without the love triangle of a supreme being. We are humanistic, rather than dogmatic.

Government has nothing to do with it. But if I were to follow your reasoning, I’d think if government “steals” people away from religion, than perhaps the message of religion is not as strong and clear as it claims to be.

I don’t think that “blaming” atheists for the evolution of Christianity into something less traditional flies. The fact is, the majority of people in this world believe in a supreme being. Islam is growing faster than Christianity and atheism. Why is Islam not being “blamed” in this post?

Understand, I don’t think anyone should be blamed. I believe in balance. I believe that all of us are naturally inclined to certain ways of thinking and perceiving. We balance each other out. There will never be a human race that is 100% atheistic, nor will there ever be a human race that is 100% religious, even though the majority of the world is religious. There are majorities and there are minorities.

Sound out if you will, sir, but I would encourage you to put aside the gloom and doom. The tides may ebb and flow, but the world is as it should be.

Understand that there is no element of coercion in my suggestion. To see coercion we should look to the system already in place. If you do not pay taxes (much of which will be used to fund anti-Christian programs), you go to jail. If a church gets too lippy about the goings of society, it loses its tax-free exemption. You should replace Christmas with “Winter Party” in your office or you risk termination. Threats and self-abasement guide much of our daily lives…threats imposed by the state we live under. As George Washington said, government is force – not eloquence, not reason. Its sine qua none is to tell us how we shall live. Our Constitution was merely intended to limit that…

Instead of coercion, I say we stop forcibly taking one person’s money to give to another. We should free employees from the fear of expressing their faith in the public square. We should stop the secularist hand that feeds millions of Americans, because with the comfortable life provided we see an increase of secularism and people very comfortable with it. And this end is accomplished because if you don’t pay the taxes that fund this, you go to jail. Now that is coercion.

Just remember, there is no coercion in Christ. We freely sin, we must freely repent. Human beings have the type of government we want. Most governments are tyranncial because we really don’t want the resposibility that comes with freedom. It is too easy for us to slide into the license to which we are tempted.

To change the government we have to change.

The decline in Christianity is due exclusively to folks choosing the world over Christ, it is because they are not even offered Christ at all.

Should have read: The decline in Christianity is not due exclusively to folks choosing the world over Christ, but because folks are not even offered Christ at all.

When God is presented as He is in much of what passes for Christianity, the only rational response is to say, “if that’s really God, no thanks”. The decline in Christianity is due exclusively to folks choosing the world over Christ, it is because they are not even offered Christ at all.

What to you mean when you say “Many will choose those things over Christianity when given the choice. Therefore, remove the choice.”

What has changed is the role of the state in people’s lives. As the reach of the government goes up, the influence of religion goes down. Many think they don’t need religion because every the state is there to attend to their every need. For its benevolence, the state only asks for your vote and your loyalty at the shrine of multiculturalism. With just these two acknowledgments, you can engage in a whole universe of depravity. It offers material and tactile plenty beyond what is normally available, and many find that much more appealing than the ascetic and high-purposed life of a Christian.

The only way is to limit the power of the state – not to deprive people of “the good life” – but to return a natural balance to the world. Our economic woes display a gross imbalance; our national and individual debts show this cannot last forever. But as long as the nation plays at God, Christianity will find itself competing against an opponent that has given itself the resources to offer all the pleasures of a day. Many will choose those things over Christianity when given the choice. Therefore, remove the choice.