Is Michael Moore a Jesus Freak?

[Ed Hudgins]

Is Michael Moore a Jesus Freak?
by Edward Hudgins

October 12, 2009 - It’s no secret that Michael Moore hates economic liberty; the theme of his movie Capitalism: A Love Story is that the free market is evil. But unlike most on the extreme left, Moore attempts to justify his views based on his Christian Catholic religion.

Moore asks, “Would Jesus be a capitalist?” He answers that capitalism “is opposite everything that Jesus ... taught” and that all religions are clear about one thing: “It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what’s left for everyone to fight over.” (Sadly, he’s ignoring the fact that wealth isn’t a static pie but something that must be created. And he doesn’t understand that in a capitalist system, those who create the most get the most. Then again, his movies are based on twisting and ignoring facts.)

Moore says that Jesus “told us that we had to be our brother’s and sister’s keepers and that the riches that did exist were to be divided fairly.” Moore argues that one cannot be a capitalist and a Christian because “you can’t love money AND your neighbor.”

Christ, no!

No doubt many Christians—certainly the ones I know—would object strongly to Moore’s conclusions. Some might argue that Moore takes Jesus’ teachings out of context and would quote Bible verses to the contrary. “Thou shalt not steal,” for example, means that it’s a sin to take someone else’s private property. And such property is the foundation of a capitalist system.

Others might point to the parable of the talents (Matthew 25: 14-30). A master gives his three servants money for safe keeping while he’s away. Upon his return he finds that two of the servants have doubled the money entrusted to them through trade and commerce and he praises them. But the third buried the money in the ground, keeping it safe but not increasing its value, and he rebukes him. It sure seems like Jesus is praising the capitalists!

Other Christians might argue that being our “brother’s keeper” does not mean having government redistribute our property by force, which is favored by Moore. Charity, if it is to be virtuous, must be voluntary.

Not on ancient texts

But all of these arguments against Moore’s views of capitalism face serious problems. To begin with, trying to establish a moral code simply by quoting competing passages from the Bible or any other texts, ancient or modern, is a no-win proposition. When playing such a game, there’s no standard for moral truth.

More fundamentally, Moore does, in fact, make an important point with which it’s hard to argue. Most Christians as well as adherents to other religions and moral doctrines see one’s moral worth defined first by the extent to which one puts aside one’s personal interests and dedicates one’s self to helping others. They argue that altruism, understood to mean putting others first and having a duty to serve others, should be the code of any moral individual.

But in such a case it becomes difficult for one to argue with Moore and other socialists who maintain that the capitalist system, in which individuals put their own self-interest first, is evil. Isn’t it our duty to happily allow government to take our wealth in order to help others? But this view of capitalism is wrong because the moral standard on which this view rests is wrong.

Life, in fact, is the standard of all value. But we human beings don’t survive by allowing ourselves to be driven by our instincts. Rather, we must choose how to act. The first moral choice must be to exercise our minds, our unique conceptual capacity for understanding the world and ourselves—i.e., to practice the virtue of rationality. We must use our knowledge to create food, shelter, medicine, and the means of our survival—that’s the virtue of productivity.

And we must see ourselves as individuals worthy of survival, happiness, and flourishing—that’s the virtue of pride. Thus we are each our own end in life and have a moral right to pursue our own happiness. And based on this principle of respect for the individual, we each should deal with our fellows in society based on mutual consent, not the initiation of force.

The self as center

This understanding of morality undercuts Michael Moore’s view in several fundamental ways.

First, it rejects the notion that we are each our brother’s keeper. We’re not and should not think of ourselves as having a duty to sacrifice ourselves as individuals for everyone else in the world. It is, of course, in our self-interest as individuals to have friends, to share our lives with loved ones, and perhaps to raise families. When we help those we love we don’t sacrifice but, rather, support and affirm our highest values. If we have healthy values we will, of course, have benevolence and good will for others who deserve it. But we will look first to our own self-interest.

Second, a morality of rational self-interest tells us that there is only one social system in which individuals deal with one another based on mutual consent: capitalism. In such a system we each produce and trade goods and services with one another on a voluntary basis. We each pursue our own values and leave others free to pursue theirs. All other social systems—socialism, communism, the welfare state—allow certain individuals to extract value from others by using government force. Michael Moore thus stands with a gun in his hand pointed at us arguing that he is moral.

Finally, in a society in which we are free to follow our own live-affirming, rational self-interest, we each will be enriched, entertained, educated, enlightened, and inspired by the efforts of others.

Those Christians and religious individuals who rightly reject Moore’s moral mess must look to an objective standard of morality to oppose him lest they be hoisted by their own Biblical petard.
------
Hudgins directs advocacy and is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

*William R Thomas, “What is the Objectivist Position in Morality?”

*David Kelley, “The Fourth Revolution.”The New Individualist, Spring 2009.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

I saw Michael Moore's interview with Sean Hannity and, frankly, he mopped the floor with Hannity. It was because of this religious thing. Hannity tried to defend his conservative views according to Christianity as did Moore his liberal views.

A few highlights from memory.

Hannity tried to corner Moore with the amount of money Moore was making. Moore mentioned a Jesus saying about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. Then he said that this is one of the reasons he has to be extra careful to do good with the money he made and why he gives so much away. All Hannity could do was me-too this (at 15% at that).

Using an Objectivist standard, Hannity is OK here, but according to the standard they were using, Moore came off as the good guy and Hannity as a flawed aspirant.

The killer came when Moore asked Hannity if he loved his enemies. Hannity said he did, then Moore asked if he loved the members of Al Qaeda.

Ouch.

All this goes to prove Rand's observation that when two irrational arguments are being used, the most consistent one will win.

It was not a good interview for Hannity, but from the way he is advertising it, I doubt he sees this.

I haven't seen Moore's new movie yet and I was not aware of his strong Christian side before his interview with Hannity. Now certain things make sense to me with respect to why Moore does what he does.

Michael

[merjet]

The killer came when Moore asked Hannity if he loved his enemies. Hannity said he did, then Moore asked if he loved the members of Al Qaeda.

MOORE: So you love Al Qaeda, then.

HANNITY: No, I don't love them. I love them in the sense that I want to destroy them.

MOORE: I don't think that's the love Jesus was talking about.

(LAUGHTER)

HANNITY: I want them to see — they want to go see Allah, I'm all in favor of giving them a first class ticket if — if they don't respect human life and dignity.

source

I wonder why Hannity didn't ask Moore, "Do you love Al Qaeda?"

Edited October 12, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Dragonfly]

Jesus! I don't know this Hannity fellow, but he sounds here really dumb...

Edited October 12, 2009 by Dragonfly

[Michelle]

Jesus! I don't know this Hannity fellow, but he sounds here really dumb...

You're not going to find a lot of first-rate commentary on FOX NEWS.

[Rush]

Jesus! I don't know this Hannity fellow, but he sounds here really dumb...

You're not going to find a lot of first-rate commentary on FOX NEWS.

I don't know michelle i think that oreilly has some very witty banter with his guests and he has a few objectivist viewpoints he isnt the nicest and certainly not the most intelligent person on syndicated news channels today i mean no dan rather but he gets the job done and isnt afraid of whos toes he steps on whilst getting the job done

[Michelle]

Jesus! I don't know this Hannity fellow, but he sounds here really dumb...

You're not going to find a lot of first-rate commentary on FOX NEWS.

I don't know michelle i think that oreilly has some very witty banter with his guests and he has a few objectivist viewpoints he isnt the nicest and certainly not the most intelligent person on syndicated news channels today i mean no dan rather but he gets the job done and isnt afraid of whos toes he steps on whilst getting the job done

I don't care for O'Reilly. He doesn't seem to think critically, instead preferring to speak in a language of buzzwords and slogans (although not to the degree Hannity does). His philosophy is severely limited (consider how he seperates people into one of two camps: "traditionalist" or "secular progressive." Where the hell does that leave libertarians, Objectivists, religious progressives, etc.?) He constantly lets his emotions usurp his rationality and bullies his guests unfairly to the point where I begin to feel sorry for them even when I think O'Reilly is in the right.

[Rush]

Jesus! I don't know this Hannity fellow, but he sounds here really dumb...

You're not going to find a lot of first-rate commentary on FOX NEWS.

I don't know michelle i think that oreilly has some very witty banter with his guests and he has a few objectivist viewpoints he isnt the nicest and certainly not the most intelligent person on syndicated news channels today i mean no dan rather but he gets the job done and isnt afraid of whos toes he steps on whilst getting the job done

I don't care for O'Reilly. He doesn't seem to think critically, instead preferring to speak in a language of buzzwords and slogans (although not to the degree Hannity does). His philosophy is severely limited (consider how he seperates people into one of two camps: "traditionalist" or "secular progressive." Where the hell does that leave libertarians, Objectivists, religious progressives, etc.?) He constantly lets his emotions usurp his rationality and bullies his guests unfairly to the point where I begin to feel sorry for them even when I think O'Reilly is in the right.

i can see your point michelle i like some of his points he makes when he talks to certain people that give him an actual reason to flame the hell out of them but i will have to agree he is very emotional when he does do interviews

[Ed Hudgins]

MSK - I saw part of that interview and agree that Hannity couldn't handle Moore because he was arguing on Moore's moral premise--altruism--which meant all Hannity could do was make a "how much of your money to you give away?" argument.

Good point about Rand's point that when two irrational ideas collide, the most consist probably wins.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I generally like Fox.

I don't agree with everything on Fox, but then I don't agree with everything with anybody.

In relation to the other news stations, there is no comparison. Fox is the best option by far. The fact that the ratings reflects this shows that, although the American people are stupid enough to elect Obama, they are also smart enough to come out of it.

Even John Stoessel is moving from ABC to Fox.

Despite the religion, I could not imagine a show on mainstream TV like Glenn Beck in former years. The guy bases most of his arguments on defending the individual. With 2 NYT bestsellers on the same message to boot.

How cool is that?

Michael

[Michelle]

I generally like Fox.

I don't agree with everything on Fox, but then I don't agree with everything with anybody.

In relation to the other news stations, there is no comparison. Fox is the best option by far. The fact that the ratings reflects this shows that, although the American people are stupid enough to elect Obama, they are also smart enough to come out of it.

Even John Stoessel is moving from ABC to Fox.

Despite the religion, I could not imagine a show on mainstream TV like Glenn Beck in former years. The guy bases most of his arguments on defending the individual. With 2 NYT bestsellers on the same message to boot.

How cool is that?

Michael

I do like Stossel. And Glenn Beck is cute, witty, and makes a lot of damned good points.

When I had cable (been about six months without... I really should get it back) he was the only reason I watched FOX.

Otherwise, I watched MSNBC (yes, yes, gasps of horror). I used to avoid Olbermann like the plague, though, because it seemed like every time I tuned into his show he was ranting about President Bush or O'Reilly.

[Selene]

Jesus! I don't know this Hannity fellow, but he sounds here really dumb...

He is. Good man. Does a lot of work with the troops. Passionate, but repetitive, tedious and not skilled at debate at all.

[Michelle]

Jesus! I don't know this Hannity fellow, but he sounds here really dumb...

He is. Good man. Does a lot of work with the troops. Passionate, but repetitive, tedious and not skilled at debate at all.

The problem is that he, and most of the people on FOX NEWS at large, try to cater both to Christian and pro-capitalist morality. But these two approaches can easily contradict oneanother, and thus we're left with the spectacle of Michael Moore running circles around him.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Yep.

I noticed you took issue with the "christian objectivist" thread, but they do exist.

My purpose is to change one person at a time and engage in full scale pressure

politically everywhere. Politics is war. See the Art of War, the Prince and Alinsky.

Therefore, I will work with the christian right without even batting an eyelash.

I will also look to convert or at a minimum expose the folks in that political campaign to rational thinking and

Ayn's ideas through her fiction.

I am also a person who thought she sucked as a political essayist.

Adam

[Michelle]

Yep.

I noticed you took issue with the "christian objectivist" thread, but they do exist.

My purpose is to change one person at a time and engage in full scale pressure

politically everywhere. Politics is war. See the Art of War, the Prince and Alinsky.

Therefore, I will work with the christian right without even batting an eyelash.

I will also look to convert or at a minimum expose the folks in that political campaign to rational thinking and

Ayn's ideas through her fiction.

I am also a person who thought she sucked as a political essayist.

Adam

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Christians shouldn't be exposed to Objectivism, or that there is anything wrong with Christians who have Objectivist leanings or Objectivists who have Christian leanings. But to identify as a "Christian Objectivist" is disingenuous and an insult to both Christianity and Objectivism. Like I said, they can call themselves that if they want to, but I won't be expected to reinforce their delusions.

On one level, it is smart for FOX to play up both moralities, as the majority of its faithful viewers are likely both conservative and Christian. But when someone, like Michael Moore, goes on and plays on these contradictory standards, whoever is unfortunate enough to have to bear the brunt of the consequences (in this case, Hannity) is made to look either weak or foolish or both as a result.

I don't know that she "sucks," but her soul was in fiction writing. Her essays just don't do it for me.

That isn't to say that I dislike ALL her nonfiction writing. I found the article on the shuttle launch to be incredibly moving, as it reminded me of my childhood. When I first learned about the moon landing, I felt something that I've rarely felt as strongly since: a sense of the sacred. What I was supposed to be feeling in Church on Sundays. The sense that, had those men died on the way back, it would have been no great loss, because they had already participated in something so great that even Heaven would be a let-down from that glorious mission. Of course, this is just me trying to articulate in retrospect what was, at the time, experienced only as a great, almost paralyzing emotion. I had a period of severe religiosity after that, thinking that I'd somehow tapped into a great cosmic connection to God Himself. I wanted to re-experience that emotion, no matter what the cost. It took me some time to figure out that religion was a dead end, in that regard.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Michelle R

[Chris Grieb]

Ed; Thanks for the making the point that "liberalism" and Christianity are two sides of the altruistic coin. I suspect the interview will be repeated with Moore will be repeated or is on You Tube.

I suspect Moore would not do an interview with Stossell.

I like Fox but avoid most of the opinion shows espically O'Reilly. It is worth pointing out that no one at Fox News got a tingle up his leg about Obama like Chris Matthews at MS NBC

Edited October 13, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Michelle:

"That isn't to say that I dislike ALL her nonfiction writing. I found the article on the shuttle launch to be incredibly moving, as it reminded me of my childhood.

When I first learned about the moon landing, I felt something that I've rarely felt as strongly since: a sense of the sacred.

What I was supposed to be feeling in Church on Sundays. The sense that, had those men died on the way back, it would have been no great loss, because

they had already participated in something so great that even Heaven would be a let-down from that glorious mission.

Of course, this is just me trying to articulate in retrospect what was, at the time, experienced only as a great, almost paralyzing emotion."

Well put. I like the way you phrased that and it almost sounded like Kira or another Ayn character's statement.

A sense of the sacred could be maintained as a concept without the "smothering" part of religion.

Adam

[John Day]

Very well done, Ed. When I saw Moore on Nightline describing capitalism as going against all the "great religions" of the world, I found it to be one of the more remarkably consistent and spot-on statements he has ever made. He is merely the most consistent adherent to a flawed morality.

[Ed Hudgins]

Folks - Fox might be a mixed bag but it's generally better than the alternatives. Their news folks will often cover stories that the elite broadcast media and MSNBC will avoid. Also they do allow not only conservatives but libertarians and Objectivists--me, for example--on their opinion shows.

Michelle, et al., you're correct that a clever manipulator like Moore can turn the contradictions of someone like Hannity around on them. Also note that in recent years there has been a rise of the social gospel types on the left who support statist policies in the name of Jesus.

That's why ultimately we must fight on sound moral ground.