The Anglican Church of Canada reckons earning $11 per hour is an offence against human dignity

In June 2014, Ontario’s minimum wage rose to $11 per hour. Unsurprisingly, the Anglican Commissariat of Canada is not happy about this. According to Rev. Maggie Helwig, Proverbs 22:2 has it wrong: people derive their dignity not from the fact that God made them in his image but from how much money they earn. Earning $14 per hour is what is needed to maintain human dignity. The exact demarcation point where indignity ends and dignity begins remains a mystery, although I suspect it will always be a little higher than the current minimum wage.

rev-maggie-helwigFrom here:

“It is an offense against human dignity when people can work full-time year round yet still live in poverty,” says Maggie Helwig from the Anglican Church of Canada. “As communities of faith, we expect Kathleen Wynne to fulfill her promise to create good jobs and leave no one behind by raising the minimum wage to $14.”

I am quite sure that Rev. Helwig owns numerous electronic gadgets made by Chinese workers earning $1.50 an hour; I wonder what she thinks about that?

Alexander Solzhenitsyn on socialism

While rummaging around my dusty bookshelves over the holidays looking for something else, I came across a book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn that I read in the late 70s: “Warning to the West”, a collection of Solzhenitsyn’s speeches in one volume. It’s a shame his words have not been taken more seriously. This is some of what he had to say about socialism in a BBC radio talk:

The decline of contemporary thought has been hastened by the misty phantom of socialism. Socialism has created the illusion of quenching people’s thirst for justice: Socialism has lulled their conscience into thinking that the steamroller which is about to flatten them is a blessing in disguise, a salvation. And socialism, more than anything else, has caused public hypocrisy to thrive; it has enabled Europe to ignore the annihilation of 66 million people on its very borders.

There is not even a single precise definition of socialism that is generally recognized: all we have is a sort of hazy shimmering concept of something good, something noble, so that two socialists talking to each other about socialism might just as well be talking about completely different things. And, of course, any new-style African dictator can call himself a socialist without fear of contradiction.

But socialism defies logic. You see, it is an emotional impulse, a kind of worldly religion, and nobody has the slightest need to study or even to read the teachings of its early prophets. Their books are judged by hearsay; their conclusions are accepted ready-made. Socialism is defended with a passionate lack of reason; it is never analyzed; it’s proof against all criticism. Socialism, especially Marxist socialism, uses the neat device of declaring all serious criticism “outside the framework of possible discussion”; and one is required to accept 95 percent of socialist doctrine as a “basis for discussion”—all that is left to argue about is the remaining 5 percent.

There is another myth here too, namely that socialism represents a sort of ultra-modern structure, an alternative to dying capitalism. And yet it existed ages and ages before any sort of capitalism.

My friend Academician Igor Shafarevich has shown in his extensive study of socialism that socialist systems, which are being used today to lure us to some halcyon future, made up the greatest portion of the previous history of mankind in the ancient East, in China, and were repeated later in the bloody experiments of the Reformation. As for socialist doctrines, he has shown that they emerged far later but have still been with us for over two thousand years; and that they originated not in an eruption of progressive thought as people think nowadays but as a reaction—Plato’s reaction against Athenian democracy, the Gnostics’ reaction against Christianity—against the dynamic world of individualism and as a return to the impersonal, stagnant system of antiquity. And if we follow the explosive sequence of socialist doctrines and socialist utopias preached in Europe—by Thomas More, Campanella, Winstanley, Morelli, Deschamps, Babeuf, Fourier, Marx, and dozens of others—we cannot help but shudder as they openly proclaim certain features of that terrible form of society. It is about time we called upon right-minded socialists calmly and without prejudice to read, say, a dozen of the major works of the major prophets of European socialism and to ask themselves: Is this really that social ideal for which they would be prepared to sacrifice the lives of countless others and even to sacrifice their own?

The Pope and politics

The Pope is doing his impression of a socialist; another reason for not becoming a Catholic (not that the RC church would have me). From here:

A figure embraced by many conservatives for his traditional views on family and sexuality, Pope Benedict XVI sees government as a positive force with vital responsibilities to help create the conditions for a just society. This is not a vague commitment. Benedict advocates for robust financial regulations, challenges governments to address climate change and even calls for a more equitable distribution of wealth. He recently urged the leaders of wealthy nations to do more to tackle the problem of global poverty, describing this priority as “too big to fail.” If he ran for office in the U.S., you can imagine the political attack ads accusing the pope of being a socialist! But our roiling political arguments would be far more productive if we tuned out strident commentators and listened to this soft-spoken theologian who articulates the teachings of a faith tradition that for centuries has offered timely wisdom about the moral dimensions of the economy.

However hard I try, I really can’t imagine St. Peter saying that the government’s role is to enforce a “more equitable distribution of wealth”, let alone play King Canute and “address climate change”. Of course, one of the authors of the article is an associate professor of Christian social ethics, an occupation that may not be entirely free from left-wing tendentiousness.