Why are there no leftist Christian terrorists?

[anvi]

How would the scriptural interpretation that would inspire such leftist Christian terrorism go?  Jesus saying "I've come not to bring peace but a sword) + Jesus purifying the temple of money changers + an interpretation of "if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer the other also..." as a prohibition to strike back but an allowance to strike first + a reading of Revelation that makes it a do-it-yourself-end-of-the-world instruction manual?

Of course, I'm being sarcastic.  But I'm doing so in an effort to make the point that it makes all the difference in the world who reads a religious text.   The Hindu Bhagavad Gita is a story of how the god Krishna convinced the reluctant warrior Arjuna to do battle against his own kinsmen.  When Gandhi, who advocated non-violence, read the text, he interpreted it as a symbolic inner spiritual battle between fear and courage that should inspire non-violent resisters to have courage and be willing to die, but not kill or injure, for their cause.  Gandhi's assassin was another Hindu, Nathuram Godse, and he took the Bhagavad Gita literally and used it as justification for putting three bullets in Gandhi's chest.  It makes a big difference who is doing the reading.

[anvi]

There are lots of liberal Christians around the world, some of whose movements have had considerable influence in the United States--the Catholic inspired movement of Liberation Theology that has in Protestant forms come to be so influential in many African American Christian communities, to name the most important.  And anyone who knows such people knows they are very passionate about their Christianity.  It's just that there are not many "liberal" Christian terrorists. 

[anvi]

Actually, I have a genuine question here.  I don't mean to be sarcastic or snarky or anything like that.  But something has always really puzzled me about the American spin on Christian political conservatism.  It seems evident from reading the gospels that Jesus not only shed blessings and praise on the poor, but he was always doing things for them, feeding them, healing their illnesses, teaching them, asking them to be his disciples.  He advised followers that, "if anyone takes away your coat, give him your cloak as well."  Jesus is even depicted as telling people who wanted to be his true disciples to "give everything you have to the poor and come follow me."  So, my question is: if Jesus thought that individual followers should serve the poor, how could that same Jesus believe that a government that did little or nothing for the poor was prasieworthy?  Given all of Jesus' advice to his followers about how they should treat the poor, why would anyone think Jesus was in favor of capitalism?

[anvi]

Well, Jesus was not a political theoriest (contrary to what George W. Bush thought in the primary debates of 2000), so apart from whatever it was he meant by the "kingdom of God," I don't think he would have advocated any form of government or economic organization in particular.  But what I don't understand is why those who associate themselves closely with Christianity who also are political conservatives in the U.S. always assume that Jesus would have thought highly of any country or government (which after all are collections of individuals) that did not do much for the poor.  He considered himself in the direct line of the Jewish prophets of the Hebrew scriptures, and they constantly and fiercly criticized the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel for not doing enough for the widow and the orphan and the poor, and predicted that this among other breeches would lead to disaster for these respective nations.  Jesus also presumably came from first century Galilee, traditionally poor farming and herding country, which held the southern part of Israel including Jerusalem in great contempt for their supposed corruption and greed.  So, I ask again, why do many American Christians who also consider themselves political conservatives assume that Jesus, an advocate for helping the poor. would think highly of a govenment that placed little priority on helping the poor and actively cut programs to do so in the name of "fiscal responsibility?"  I don't get how anyone would think Jesus would look at such priorites of a state with approbation.  I just honestly don't get it.

[anvi]

No, I don't think people would be doing better had there been less capitalism in the last two hundred years.  Indeed I think people would be quite markedly worse off worldwide were it not for free markets.  I am not mounting an argument against market economies or capitalism, as clearly markets tend to distribute resources more efficiently so long as they function properly, which requires lots of things to work right and lots of capitalists to compete fairly.

That's not the point of my question.  My point is that, even in capitalist countres with largely free market economies, there are sure to be those who will not have sufficient resources from the beginning to amass enough capital to get ahead, which is to say that predominantly free-market economies will have a certain population of poor people or struggling people who are not poor nor struggling by virtue of being, as the accuasion went above in this thread, "lazy" or "indolent."  So, my question is, why would anybody believe that Jesus would approve of a government that made no efforts to help such people?  What did Jesus ever teach to give anyone the impression that he believed a government that refused to help the poor was a good government?  You point out above that just because Jesus told individuals to help the poor, that doesn't necessarily mean he would urge a government to do it.  But consider the other alternative: would Jesus object to government policies designed to help the poor?  What if anything did Jesus ever say according to the Christian gospels to make anyone believe that he would?

I think that conviction, that a government should not actively help poor and struggling people in society, is a function of a certain set of economic convictions, not specifically Christian convictions.  In other words, I see no justification for claiming that a genuine Christian could not possibly be an economic "lefty."  Now, I am a lefty, and I am not a Christian.  But I find the belief that no genuine Christian could be an economic lefty to be completely baseless, and, more than likely, possibly contrary to what I understand Jesus teachings about the treatment of the poor to have been.