I enjoy watching stalwarts on the political Right and Left jump at any chance to use religion to their advantage in arguing for or against a policy of their choosing.

The Left decries the Right for cherry-picking Biblical passages to justify homophobic discrimination, patriarchal family structures, prudish prohibitions on our personal affairs and intrusive impositions on our bodies — not to mention undermining science.

But when Pope Francis last week stated that he believes the governments of the world should undertake a dramatic effort to redistribute wealth, citing the teachings of Jesus, opportunistic leftists lapped up the papal proclamation. Suddenly, the Bible is a friendly, valid source. Hallelujah!

Tempting as it will always be, this course of argument is burdened by an array of fundamental flaws. None of what follows is meant to belittle Pope Francis’s intent. Nor is it to reject the support or views of devout Catholics or other Christians who may change sides on the matter due to his decree.

This commentary is about reason and social change strategy, specifically addressing secularly minded folks with progressive or radical leanings on political economy.

The Bible will bite us in the ass

Do we really think it’s a good idea to validate the Christian Bible as a source? Even just the New Testament as it conveys the teachings of Jesus? Before you say so, you might want to leaf through it one more time.

The Bible is rife with passages that can be interpreted to reinforce just about any belief one might wish to uphold. And logic dictates you can’t use it as a source unless you’re willing to let your opponent do the same. So let’s just not do that.

Cite Jesus’s statement that a rich man cannot possibly get to Heaven as a means of quashing a capitalist’s claim to be a true Christian, if that’s your bag. But when it comes to policy, let’s keep the debate earthly.

The authority fallacy

For hundreds of millions of observant Catholics, the Pope is the ultimate authority on Earth. That makes it tempting to call him in for backup when his opinion coincides with your own. In certain cases, it can be an effective way to end an argument, even if it means preying on your opponent’s lack of sophistication.

This shortcut — “The Pope says so!” — engages a common logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. It lets you avoid using reason altogether and can lead to an arms race of allusions to prominent figures and varied interpretations of their views.

But political and economic policy especially should not be based on doctrine — not on any brand of market capitalist ideology, nor on any sect of socialism. Sane policy resides on a foundation of values, but it has to be fleshed out through open critique and a real understanding of alternatives. It must be subject to regular reevaluation with changing times. Otherwise, we get saddled with governments and economies rooted in dogma rather than rationality. This happened with the Soviet Union. It happened with China. It happened with Cuba. And it happened here in the United States.

Our belief in the market and private enterprise is not due to an open, honest debate and continual renewal of the conclusion that this system works best. Instead, it has been an ideology of elites since the nation’s founders, initially because it seemed reasonable (and rationalized their privilege), but increasingly over the centuries because capitalism has best served those in power. Margaret Thatcher said “there is no alternative” besides market capitalism and centrally planned state communism. Therefore, when the USSR crumbled, Francis Fukuyama declared it the “end of history”. Economics in Western academia is now essentially just the study of capitalism and how to make it better. It has never been seriously questioned or considered by the US public.

Many Marxists believe their doctrine took root differently, but that’s not an honest assessment. One could make a case that Russians had widespread sympathy for Marx’s views, but his teachings were decidedly unspecific in terms of what to do instead of capitalism. Had the Bolsheviks’ plans been open to real public scrutiny before they were imposed from the top down, it’s possible they would have been rejected or radically altered. But once established, Lenin’s authoritarian ideology became sacrosanct, referenced by Stalin and successors as justifying any crime or excess.

Power and coercion can often force outcomes, but true authority is always granted, never taken. Through apathy we cede our popular power to authorities, which is different from deciding after deliberation that an authority is deserving of its stature — and even then it should always be accountable and open to challenge.

Authority not earned through open, vibrant discourse is the worst instructor. A dictator isn’t just someone who rules; it’s also someone who mandates beliefs. All popes are dictators in this sense. If we validate papal authority, we’d better pray the next pope shares the progressive convictions we endorse.

Dogma attracts crappy converts

Appealing to authority is not just a logical fallacy; it also fosters dangerous dependency where autonomous critical thinking is most needed.

The best way to win people over to a real social movement is through reason. This is not because it makes them stronger advocates as much as because it attracts more critical thinkers early on, building a more robust foundation. A movement made up of bandwagon riders is less potent, activist for activist, than one consisting of sharp advocates who know why they’re on board. Such people have the makings of participants, contributors, and leaders.

Twentieth Century socialist intellectuals typically referred to non-intelligentsia as “the masses” who should support a vanguard making the decisions. Capitalists prefer passive workers and consumers who show up to endorse their hand-picked politicians in regular intervals (or not) but go right back to working and shopping.

Members of social movements who behave like drone bees can be a hindrance, since they require authority and management. Too many unsophisticated partisans too early on can dull the appeal to dynamic people with the right motives, instead attracting narcissists in search of sycophants.

Values and goals are not policy

There is a big leap between convincing someone of the right outcome and the optimal approach. An economy with fundamentally greater equality is an objective. But government-enforced redistribution is a vague policy proposal afflicted by innumerable pitfalls.

This is why having sharp advocates on board is so crucial. You see, nobody even claims the Bible tells us Jesus wanted governments to redistribute wealth; it says he wanted the rich to choose to give away their riches. And you’d better believe that’s the first thing most opponents will point out to Pope Francis and his adherents.

Suddenly, even among those who sympathize with the objective, we have to actually discuss the inner workings of government and economy. We need to know something about political science and economic theory. Someone is going to challenge our default implementation of God’s socialistic will, if not his holy intent.

And it’s a fair challenge. Even at their best, governments are blunt instruments. The plan to have plutocratic and oligarchical states manage a mass redistribution of wealth has holes all over its very face. What we really need is a social movement that doesn’t petition a bad government to do the right thing; the movement must undertake the solution more directly. If we can’t explain how that will be done, we will fail to convince even ourselves, and the work will be left up to politicians and their cronies.

Once you conclude in favor of drastic wealth redistribution, you’re stuck having to discuss how. That’s why we want critical thinkers more than taggers on.

None of this is to suggest that people are actually too stupid or uneducated to tackle matters of social theory or policy. But a love for learning about such issues and for engaging in the discourse of change is a requisite of useful early involvement. Otherwise, a movement for economic change can only aim for limited appeasement by politicians, which might be achievable through mass protest alone.

Over time, more people will become interested in and educated on the relevant issues, but only if we start with those most inclined to get it right. That’s already an enormous challenge with those on side today — secular or religious in their values — who want to engage as participants, not mere bodies to be counted.

This commentary is not meant to disparage Pope Francis for doing the main thing he can do to address the matter. A pope’s gonna pope, and I’m glad he’s on the sane side of this issue.

The rest of us are best off appealing to reason and secular morality when arguing for economic progress. Anyone who believes another world is possible and is interested in contributing to that struggle must be welcome to partake in the strategizing as well as the work, no matter their reasons for coming around. I certainly hope Pope Francis’s words strike a chord with hundreds of millions, and that those converts will want to actively think rather than blindly support. It won’t change the fact that we have a tremendous amount of thinking and real-world activism ahead.