Quotes from the President (taken from the article):
And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself
Obviously we'll ignore for the moment that the President is taking this command out of context, and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.
And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required
Also, lets ignore the context of this parable. Because if you read the whole parable, or even the whole verse, or even the language of the sentence, it is inconsistent with his message.
And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.
To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
I like this one. Unabashed use of government resources to further biblical teachings. Where's the "wall of separation between church and state*" Barry?
A Western leader relating his actions to other aspects of Western culture? Surely not...
He's speaking rhetorically, it's what he does for a living. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Joey wrote:A Western leader relating his actions to other aspects of Western culture? Surely not...
He's speaking rhetorically, it's what he does for a living. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Also, as I recall, every US politician ever uses God as an excuse/motivation/reason for everything. That's kind of par for the course over there,
given how much more seriously they take religion.
I don't think acknowledging that your religion influences your actions means you cannot believe in a certain level of seperation between the state and organized religion.
If your level of acceptable influence is never, not at all, no mention of anything than, yeah, you would be against this. But there are a lot of different levels on the scale of what you believe should happen in government with regards to religion.
biccat wrote:Since so many people here are against religion in government, I thought this might be interesting.
Quotes from the President (taken from the article):
And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself
Obviously we'll ignore for the moment that the President is taking this command out of context, and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.
And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required
Also, lets ignore the context of this parable. Because if you read the whole parable, or even the whole verse, or even the language of the sentence, it is inconsistent with his message.
And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.
To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
I like this one. Unabashed use of government resources to further biblical teachings. Where's the "wall of separation between church and state*" Barry?
I'll take that one completely out of context too.
You are surprised that a US politician has misconstrued the bible?
The religious portions of the speech are not speaking of any aspect that christianity has a sole claim to. Fortunately one does not need religion or the same religion as above to have similar morals and want to help others in need. If an ideology has some shared "space" with religions on grounds of helping people should the ideology be also barred from politics? The POTUS is talking about helping others, not like he is saying god told him to goto war...
biccat wrote:Since so many people here are against religion in government, I thought this might be interesting.
You were wrong. It's a really, tired, boring old argument, that's been dragged up in one form or another for a very long time.
There is nothing wrong with making an argument that draws upon the moral teachings of one's religious upbringing. There certainly isn't anything wrong with mentioning God in a speach.
There is a problem with some religious sects who believe that their faith is the only faith of any value, and seek to enshrine the belief in law. These people have close ties to the Republican party, including prominent members such as Michelle Bachmann, and that is why the Republican party draws criticism on seperation of church and state.
biccat wrote:
...and that the assertion that Jesus is God is likely to offend a lot of people.
Who, Christians that don't know what the Trinity is?
More like Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc.
Any non- Christian, or non-orthodox Christian, offended by the concept of the Trinity would already have been offended long before this speech, especially if living in a country that is predominantly Christian.
Policy proposals based on nothing more than religious doctrine are, by and large, restricted to Christian conservatives in the US - gay marriage opposition, "intelligent design," prayer in public schools, stem cell research opposition, abstinence-only sex eduction, etc. What biccat seems to be doing here is saying, "See! See! The left does it, too!"
I think the big difference is that Obama's clearly pandering. I very much doubt Obama cares one way or another what Jesus said about anything, but knows that there are plenty of people in the US who do, thus...pandering.
Seaward wrote:Policy proposals based on nothing more than religious doctrine are, by and large, restricted to Christian conservatives in the US - gay marriage opposition, "intelligent design," prayer in public schools, stem cell research opposition, abstinence-only sex eduction, etc. What biccat seems to be doing here is saying, "See! See! The left does it, too!"
Yeah, and it’s a very old, boring argument he’s trying to make. And it’s worth pointing out the origins of intelligent design come directly from the court banning the teaching of the bible in school.
I think the big difference is that Obama's clearly pandering. I very much doubt Obama cares one way or another what Jesus said about anything, but knows that there are plenty of people in the US who do, thus...pandering.
Not so much pandering as trying to frame the argument. It’d be pandering if he believed people would hear it and be excited at his Christian references, and vote for him just on the strength of that. Instead, Obama is trying to frame each issue in religious terms, to reduce the ability of his opponent’s to criticise him on religious grounds. The left has avoided religious references for a long time, and ceded the ground to people who call themselves Christian all the time but embrace polices that aren’t very Christian at all.
And I think Obama does care what Jesus thinks, as he is, afterall, a Christian.
d-usa wrote:The GOP frames itself as the "Political Party of the Bible", wanting to return the country to it's "Christian" roots, Christian family values, etc...
But when it comes to taking care of the poor, they always want to look the other way.
So I don't really see anything wrong with pointing out the double standard by the GOP there.
When Jesus returns he will be arrested crossing the border from mexico and if he somehow makes it intot he country he will be thrown into an asylum under the belief tht he is a crackhead...
I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."
I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.
I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.
sebster wrote:
And I think Obama does care what Jesus thinks, as he is, afterall, a Christian.
As opposed to a Muslim Marxist, as he has been labelled in the past (despite those two things being pretty much incompatible.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."
I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.
I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.
I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. So far I've seen very little of that; what I have seen is the point made that Obama is playing on his faith (as all US politicians are wont to do in one form or another) and the difference between that and openly using your religious doctrine as the be-all and end-all of any political argument, as some extreme minorities in the US do.
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Sort of like all those conservatives who were howling for Clinton's blood over the Lewinsky scandal yet find themselves supporting Newt "Harem-King" Gingrich today, eh?
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Sort of like all those conservatives who were howling for Clinton's blood over the Lewinsky scandal yet find themselves supporting Newt "Harem-King" Gingrich today, eh?
Sort of. Except the conservatives supporting Gingrich tend to be Americans. And the Clinton scandal had more to do with abuse of office than it had to do with Clinton's sexual activities.
So, actually, if by "sort of" you mean "not at all," then yes.
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."
I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.
I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.
The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."
I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.
I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.
The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?
(Looks at W-2 form and the amount of money the government just took from me)
Wait, theft isn't legalized now?
As opposed to a Muslim Marxist, as he has been labelled in the past (despite those two things being pretty much incompatible.)
Not Marxist, but I'll just leave this here.
He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.
Also, yeah, the point I was making was that Marxism and Atheism are supposed to go hand-in-hand, or so I'm told.
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Sort of like all those conservatives who were howling for Clinton's blood over the Lewinsky scandal yet find themselves supporting Newt "Harem-King" Gingrich today, eh?
Sort of. Except the conservatives supporting Gingrich tend to be Americans. And the Clinton scandal had more to do with abuse of office than it had to do with Clinton's sexual activities.
So, actually, if by "sort of" you mean "not at all," then yes.
Before the "abuse of office" aspects came to light - if they ever did, and ultimately I don't consider lying under oath about getting head to be the end of the world, which is one of the many reasons I'm not welcome at Focus on the Family prayer breakfasts anymore - I don't recall conservatives taking a calm, collected, non-gak-flipping view of the fact that Clinton was getting it from someone other than his wife. That might be what social conservatives like to pretend in retrospect, but the "Think of the children!"-style outrage was non-stop.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?
According to some, yes.
I'd address your point in more detail, but I suspect you're just here to drop a one-liner and then avoid engaging in any discussion until you've got another witty one-liner to throw in.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.
I would agree. After all, with all that Preacher said, the US also did a hell of a lot for others; I'll just bring up the Marshall Plan as an example, or the graves in France where you'll find some of the US war dead from the second world war.
Truth is, no country or thing can be totally good or totally evil. That only happens in early comic books and old disney movies.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.
I would agree. After all, with all that Preacher said, the US also did a hell of a lot for others; I'll just bring up the Marshall Plan as an example, or the graves in France where you'll find some of the US war dead from the second world war.
Truth is, no country or thing can be totally good or totally evil. That only happens in early comic books and old disney movies.
Except for the Dark Realm that is Liechtenstein...
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.
I would agree. After all, with all that Preacher said, the US also did a hell of a lot for others; I'll just bring up the Marshall Plan as an example, or the graves in France where you'll find some of the US war dead from the second world war.
Truth is, no country or thing can be totally good or totally evil. That only happens in early comic books and old disney movies.
Except for the Dark Realm that is Liechtenstein...
We don't talk about that. It's bad luck to talk about that.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:He's taking the bad without noting the good, but he does make some points.
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?
According to some, yes.
I'd address your point in more detail, but I suspect you're just here to drop a one-liner and then avoid engaging in any discussion until you've got another witty one-liner to throw in.
In other words you don't have a good counterpoint.
I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.
I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.
CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.
I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.
Actually he asked of those who are rich to sell all of their possessions and give everything they have to charity, because the treasures in the mortal life are naught and the mortal life can end any time soon, while the treasures in heaven can never be stolen.
And then he said this:
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Not that prosperity theology ever pays attention to things like this.
The key is GIVE to charity, not have taken from you and passed out as the Gov't pleased.
An individual GIVING freely to the charity of his/her choice is a great thing. It was the individual giving freely that was to help him/her earn a place in heaven, not the amount of taxes they paid.
CptJake wrote:The key is GIVE to charity, not have taken from you and passed out as the Gov't pleased.
An individual GIVING freely to the charity of his/her choice is a great thing. It was the individual giving freely that was to help him/her earn a place in heaven, not the amount of taxes they paid.
If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.
So the argument is rather moot, because it doesn't really apply to people who give a paltry amount to charity, like most of those whom are rich do (and even then only do so to lessen their tax burden). The argument that they'd give more if there was no taxes is ludicrous, but meh, that's all beside the point.
The government must be concerned with the real world, the physical world as it actually is. It's the preacher's job to be concerned with the spiritual health of other people, not the government, which must solve real-world problems with the tools that it has. Taxation is one of those tools, and poverty is one of those problems.
Melissia wrote:If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.
Which isn't actually a true statement. You're on a roll with these.
Melissia wrote:Ah yes, and I'm sure that Biccat would say that one of the Republican candidates would be an acceptable alternative, amirite?
Acceptable in what manner?
I don't think that appeals to religion are the evil that others seem to think they are.* So I don't have a problem with a candidate using religion to justify their political decisions. I was posting this because I thought it would be good red meat for the Christian bashers here to go off on Obama. Funny how they're not. And by funny, I mean totally not surprising.
@Kilkrazy: You have a habit of ignoring responses. Plus, I avoid discussing things with MODs because they have an unfair advantage in the discussion.
CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.
I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.
Actually he asked of those who are rich to sell all of their possessions and give everything they have to charity, because the treasures in the mortal life are naught and the mortal life can end any time soon, while the treasures in heaven can never be stolen.
And then he said this:
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Not that prosperity theology ever pays attention to things like this.
And nothing was ever said about giving everything to the government. Government was not viewed positively at the time. Something about Romans and Armageddon and all that.
Melissia wrote:If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.
Which isn't actually a true statement. You're on a roll with these.
Unlike you, I gave a quote.
biccat wrote:Acceptable in what manner?
I don't think that appeals to religion are the evil that others seem to think they are.* So I don't have a problem with a candidate using religion to justify their political decisions. I was posting this because I thought it would be good red meat for the Christian bashers here to go off on Obama. Funny how they're not. And by funny, I mean totally not surprising.
Ah yes, that's right. You would insult me by calling me a "Christian Basher" because you can't come to terms with what I actually have said and instead must label me as something simpler that you actually are willing to bother trying to comprehend.
Instead of, you know, reading, which seems to be far too much work for you.
Melissia wrote:If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.
Which isn't actually a true statement. You're on a roll with these.
Unlike you, I gave a quote.
Actually you edited that in after I had quoted your post.
On a roll, and all that.
You can read your quote in its full context here, including this gem:
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
But I'm no expert in theology. You should talk to a priest if you have questions about theology.
Melissia wrote:Ah yes, that's right. You would insult me by calling me a "Christian Basher".
Why do you assume I was talking about you? Why do you assume that calling people "Christian bashers" is insulting, rather than descriptive?
And, on a more interesting note, how is that term not descriptive of you?
biccat wrote:Actually you edited that in after I had quoted your post.
It was in there from the start. My edit didn't add that in.
biccat wrote:Why do you assume I was talking about you?
Because I am not stupid, and you should stop being so disingenuous, noone believes you. You have tried to force that label upon me in the past, however ill fitting it has always been.
I am against extremists. Not Christians. I have argued against Atheist extremists, I have decried Muslim extremists, and yes, I have denounced Christian extremists. I have always done this, but you have refused to accept this, and you will likely continue to do so instead of bothering to read anything that's actually been said because you're just looking to insult me.
Melissia wrote:Because I am not stupid, and you should stop being so disingenuous, noone believes you. You have tried to force that label upon me in the past, however ill fitting it has always been.
I've been ignoring your posts (in the OT at least, I do blame you for getting me hooked on GalCiv2) for quite a while. I was actually specifically referring to other posters.
I will let others take from your "Becauase I am not stupid" assertion what they will based on this new information.
Melissia wrote:I am against extremists. Not Christians. I have argued against Atheist extremists, I have decried Muslim extremists, and yes, I have denounced Christian extremists. I have always done this, but you have refused to accept this, and you will likely continue to do so instead of bothering to read anything that's actually been said because you're just looking to insult me.
biccat wrote:I don't think that appeals to religion are the evil that others seem to think they are.* So I don't have a problem with a candidate using religion to justify their political decisions. I was posting this because I thought it would be good red meat for the Christian bashers here to go off on Obama. Funny how they're not. And by funny, I mean totally not surprising.
I wouldn't call myself a Christian basher, as I'm not particularly picky about sects, but I'd say the reason I haven't gone off on him to your satisfaction is that I don't find pandering quite as frightening as genuine belief.
Is it a stupid argument, that he made? Of course it is. They all are, when that's the basis.
Melissia wrote:I am against extremists. Not Christians. I have argued against Atheist extremists, I have decried Muslim extremists, and yes, I have denounced Christian extremists. I have always done this, but you have refused to accept this, and you will likely continue to do so instead of bothering to read anything that's actually been said because you're just looking to insult me.
Yep, my prediction was right.
"Stop insulting me!"
"Why do you think I was insulting you?"
"Because I'm not stupid"
"I wasn't even talking about you."
"See, I was right!"
Biccat, you've called me a "Christian basher" before, and I posted in this thread before you started throwing around the term "Christian basher". I can put two and two together. If you honestly weren't intending to, that would be a surprise to me, because you certainly never held back in calling me that in the past.
CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.
I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.
Good god man, have you never read the Bible? Matthew 21 is a pretty basic passage that even non-Christians know that directly says it is ok to pay taxes. Jesus never attacked any Romans, even when they came to take him to the cross, but threw private business out of the temples. He taught friendship and understanding between the Hebrews and the Romans, as well as all people really.
Biccat, you've called me a "Christian basher" before, and I posted in this thread before you started throwing around the term "Christian basher". I can put two and two together. If you honestly weren't intending to, that would be a surprise to me, because you certainly never held back in calling me that in the past.
Yes, because everything is always in the exact same wording, amirite?
Let's take it to PMs before the mods take umbrage (if it's not too late already).
Also, more on topic:
Ahtman wrote:Good god man, have you never read the Bible? Matthew 21 is a pretty basic passage that even non-Christians know that directly says it is ok to pay taxes. Jesus never attacked any Romans, even when they came to take him to the cross, but threw private business out of the temples. He taught friendship and understanding between the Hebrews and the Romans, as well as all people really.
CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.
I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.
Good god man, have you never read the Bible? Matthew 21 is a pretty basic passage that even non-Christians know that directly says it is ok to pay taxes. Jesus never attacked any Romans, even when they came to take him to the cross, but threw private business out of the temples. He taught friendship and understanding between the Hebrews and the Romans, as well as all people really.
Actually, I have read the bible. It is interesting to note that tax collectors are all considered sinners and some give up thier evil ways to follow Jesus, and that he encourages them to do so, which is really getting them to give up support to Rome. The fact he accepts any into his group is seen by the population he preaches to as radical. This is one of the reasons he was not as widely accepted as some would have liked. Many of the Jews were looking for a warrior to lead a violent rebellion against Rome, Jesus refused to be that man.
In the verse you mention, yep,'give to Ceasar that which he is due' or words to that effect. Doesn't negate a single thing I have said. Note he doesn't say gie up all your belongings to the gov't, he says pay your taxes. He doesn't think Gov't is the answer to feeding the poor, he teaches individuals are.
biccat wrote: I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.
Coffee actually came out of my nose! I am not sure if you said that with the intention of irony, I will pretend yes.
CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.
Actually he did speak of taxes saying "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars". As an atheist I get to "talk" about religion LOTS. In fact, it turns out I know more about religion than your average christian!
Well I was ninja'd, I can read your response above Cpt. Jake.
Pay your taxes is meant what it is. Let the worldly ruler deal with worldly items, but God tends to the important things.
There's nothing in the Bible about government stealing money from one person to pay another person as a good thing or even a bad thing. Its what YOU do.
J-Roc77 wrote:Coffee actually came out of my nose! I am not sure if you said that with the intention of irony, I will pretend yes.
Presumably you're trying to accuse me of hypocracy (and doing a poor job of it).
He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.
Ahtman wrote:He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.
Since you seem to know the mind of the poster I quoted so well, perhaps you could answer my question?
Ahtman wrote:He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.
Since you seem to know the mind of the poster I quoted so well, perhaps you could answer my question?
Why do people outside of a country care about the political events of other countries? I imagine that would depend on the individual, but I don't think it is an uncommon occurrence. We could always ask Vietnam, Panama, Korea, Japan, Iraq, or Liberia if it might be noteworthy to know what is going on in other country's politics. I think we might even have an entire governmental department devoted to Foreign Affairs, as well as private industry. So I suppose the question you should ask is "why do we have an interest in the politics and events in other countries". If you answer that, I imagine you will also answer why others look at the US. Of course with the US you have the added elements of obscene amounts of wealth, military power, and the constant application of both abroad.
Ahtman wrote:He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.
Since you seem to know the mind of the poster I quoted so well, perhaps you could answer my question?
Why do people outside of a country care about the political events of other countries? I imagine that would depend on the individual, but I don't think it is an uncommon occurrence. We could always ask Vietnam, Panama, Korea, Japan, Iraq, or Liberia if it might be notable to know what is going on in other countries politics. I think we might even have an entire governmental department devoted to Foreign Affairs, as well as private industry. So I suppose the question you should ask is "why do we have an interest in the politics and events in other countries". If you answer that, I imagine you will also answer why others look at the US. Of course with the US you have the added elements of obscene amounts of wealth, military power, and the constant application of both abroad.
So what you're saying is that you're just trolling and restating baseless accusations.
Polonius wrote:I think you're just upset that a politician discovered a moral message in the bible that doesn't somehow come down to sex.
Upset? The fact that one has the reading comprehension to discern messages beyond how to control our lives would be a welcome change.
As an aside, however, the President actually didn't "discover" a moral message in the Bible, in fact he "discovered" a quote he could misapply to try to make a point. Remember his "I am my brothers keeper" comment? Boy did he take that one out of context!
It's been my experince that biblical verses mean, more or less, what the reader wants them to mean.
"Context" is just another word for perspective.
I"m not debating any particularl interpretation of any given verse, just stating that context is a tricky thing.
I think a better argument to make is that things like home loans and health insurance are not moral areas. I don't think it's a good one (particulalry with health insurance), but I think that charging what the market will bear for a home loan, particulalry when renting is a viable option, is not an immoral act. I would rather my brother not charge me full price, but I'm still gonna make him pay retail.
While I don't especially mind when politicians talk about their faith in general, I certainly do not like it when they use their faith to guide their legislative agenda. That applies as equally to Santorum wishing to deny women the right to have abortions because he doesn't think God would like it as it does, in my eyes, to Obama making arguments for foreign aid allocations based upon the basis with which Jesus might have balanced them. I'd greatly prefer that elected politicians leave their faith in their places of worship.
Yeah, organized religion when mingled with official political policy has done a lot to improve the world. That's why all the theocratic-based countries are also the most advanced, I guess.
Actually, the combination of religion and government is about as mixed a bag as any other form of governance. If nothing else, it was the default form until the enlightenment. And the first aggressively secular state, revolutionary France, was bad news.
The role of religion even in American politics has been both good and bad.
Polonius wrote:Actually, the combination of religion and government is about as mixed a bag as any other form of governance. If nothing else, it was the default form until the enlightenment. And the first aggressively secular state, revolutionary France, was bad news.
The role of religion even in American politics has been both good and bad.
And one could point to the advances that occured when the Holy Roman Empire was still the big deal and how it shaped the development of Europe and the West.
But facts like those could ruin the desired effect of his anti-relion ranting.
biccat wrote:
So what you're saying is that you're just trolling and restating baseless accusations.
Can we assume then, that given you favor arguments from bias, hypocrisy, and occasionally both that you're just trolling and restating baseless accusations in the course of making them?
That aside, Ahtman's point about not understanding why people from other nations become wrapped in foreign, domestic politics is well phrased in the sense foreign, domestic politics generally affect other nations. The US in particular has a rather wide reach, so many foreign citizens take an interest in its domestic political situation to the point of forming partisan, and personal, preferences. There's no reason these preferences would be based on anything more legitimate than those commonly formed by US citizens. Not understanding this, basically just says to me that you haven't spent much time thinking about it.
Well, that, or you were trying to get a rise out of someone by dropping the phrase "mental gymnastics" in order to attempt to delegitimize their position.
biccat wrote:
As an aside, however, the President actually didn't "discover" a moral message in the Bible, in fact he "discovered" a quote he could misapply to try to make a point. Remember his "I am my brothers keeper" comment? Boy did he take that one out of context!
Not so much, seeing as the phrase "I am my brother's keeper." doesn't appear in the Bible. Instead, the phrase in Genesis is "Am I my brothers keeper?" which can, and has been, be interpreted as "Am I supposed to take of my brother?" Further, many hold that the obvious answer to this question is "Yes."
It wasn't a biblical quote, it was a play on a biblical quote.
Can we assume then, that given you favor arguments from bias, hypocrisy, and occasionally both that you're just trolling and restating baseless accusations in the course of making them?
dogma wrote:Can we assume then, that given you favor arguments from bias, hypocrisy, and occasionally both that you're just trolling and restating baseless accusations in the course of making them?
If I recall correctly, you're the one who admits that you favor arguments from bias, hypocrisy, and that you occasionally troll these forums.
I think the term is "projection."
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
As an aside, however, the President actually didn't "discover" a moral message in the Bible, in fact he "discovered" a quote he could misapply to try to make a point. Remember his "I am my brothers keeper" comment? Boy did he take that one out of context!
Not so much, seeing as the phrase "I am my brother's keeper." doesn't appear in the Bible. Instead, the phrase in Genesis is "Am I my brothers keeper?" which can, and has been, be interpreted as "Am I supposed to take of my brother?" Further, many hold that the obvious answer to this question is "Yes."
It wasn't a biblical quote, it was a play on a biblical quote.
Note how I quoted President Obama, not the Bible, so your (implied) argument that I'm misquoting is, per usual, misguided.
Even if it's a play on the quote, it's still a taking the comment way out of context.
biccat wrote:
If I recall correctly, you're the one who admits that you favor arguments from bias, hypocrisy, and that you occasionally troll these forums.
You recall incorrectly. There are several pages of exchanges between the two of us in which I refute your arguments from bias or hypocrisy that are either directed at me, or others. In fact, I can't even remember a point at which I've ever argued from bias or hypocrisy, as I've said many times that bias is essentially code for "I don't like what you're saying." and hypocrisy is almost impossible to prove.
biccat wrote:
I think the term is "projection."
It is, and it applies here, but not in the sense that you believe it does.
biccat wrote:
Note how I quoted President Obama, not the Bible, so your (implied) argument that I'm misquoting is, per usual, misguided.
That isn't the implied argument by any stretch of the imagination. My argument is that you plainly don't know enough about the context of the Biblical passage Obama was referencing with his comment in order to claim it was far outside context.
biccat wrote:
Even if it's a play on the quote, it's still a taking the comment way out of context.
By comment I assume you mean "passage", and no, it isn't. Stating that "I am my brothers keeper." does three things. First, it connects to the original Genesis passage which is essentially God confronting Cain for his murder of Abel. Second, it implies that the correct answer to the question posed by God to Cain is, as many biblical scholars will tell you, "Yes." Third, it generalizes from the idea that one should not murder his brother, to one involving care for his brother; which another very popular, and storied, interpretation of the passage within the larger structure of the Bible.
True, Obama didn't discover this message by an stretch of the imagination, its a very common one after all, but he hardly took the original passage entirely out context either. How you could consider the former to be true tells me that you're either being intellectually dishonest, or haven't spent a lot of time considering how the Bible is interpreted.
I think if the quotes Biccat put up from President O had instead been said by President W, there would have been a lot more mockery of it by the anti-religious crowd. Seems the current Pres gets a few more breaks than the last one.
dogma wrote:By comment I assume you mean "passage", and no, it isn't. Stating that "I am my brothers keeper." does three things.
Although I'm 95% convinced that you're (again) trolling, I'm going to play along. Lets look at these three:
dogma wrote:First, it connects to the original Genesis passage which is essentially God confronting Cain for his murder of Abel.
How is this relevant to the argument that he is responsible for other people?
dogma wrote:Second, it implies that the correct answer to the question posed by God to Cain is, as many biblical scholars will tell you, "Yes."
Many, but not most, nor a majority, nor even a plurality. Probably not even a substantial number. There's a lot of interpretations of that passage, and the only ones who use it in the manner suggested by President Obama are those who are using faulty reasoning: assuming the conclusion and then tailoring their analysis to fit the conclusion.
dogma wrote:Third, it generalizes from the idea that one should not murder his brother, to one involving care for his brother; which another very popular, and storied, interpretation of the passage within the larger structure of the Bible.
And I'm sure that not murdering his brother is a good lesson for the President. But that's a stretch.
There are better passages in the Bible that teach the concept of caring for your fellow man. This type of grandstanding simply shows that Barry's religious views are superficial at best.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I think if the quotes Biccat put up from President O had instead been said by President W, there would have been a lot more mockery of it by the anti-religious crowd. Seems the current Pres gets a few more breaks than the last one.
You mean like having the largest media outlet in the country claiming you're a secret muslim raised in a madrassa, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, is waging a war on christianity, and aren't actually a citizen of the country?
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I think if the quotes Biccat put up from President O had instead been said by President W, there would have been a lot more mockery of it by the anti-religious crowd. Seems the current Pres gets a few more breaks than the last one.
You mean like having the largest media outlet in the country claiming you're a secret muslim raised in a madrassa, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, is waging a war on christianity, and aren't actually a citizen of the country?
Not to mention, of course, Mustardgate.
And you forgot "Terrorist Fist Jab"! Geez, man! Give credit where credit is due!
I remember seeing then Soviet big wig Brezhnev being filmed for the news praying at a mosque while Russia was hip deep in Afghanastan.
That was the ultimate WTF example of a politician trying to use religion for me.
biccat wrote:
Although I'm 95% convinced that you're (again) trolling, I'm going to play along.
One of my favorite things about you is that you assume anyone who presents an argument that is either not consistent with yours, or what you think your political opposition is, you file it away as "trolling".
biccat wrote:
How is this relevant to the argument that he is responsible for other people?
Because in that passage, read in the context of not only Genesis, but the larger Bible, there is a widely, and easily, made argument that God is scolding Cain not just for murdering his brother, but for not considering his brother's welfare to be important.
You don't read the Bible like a legal text, this is what exegesis is about.
biccat wrote:
Many, but not most, nor a majority, nor even a plurality. Probably not even a substantial number.
Genesis 4:10 wrote:
He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground.
Genesis 4:11 wrote:
"Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
Even if we read this without all the other elements of the Bible which describe in positive the elements of community, and communal action, we're still left with Cain being punished by God for killing Abel. Which seems to provide an answer that one is his brother's keeper at least insofar as he is not to cause his death which can easily be extrapolated to general harm.
biccat wrote:
There's a lot of interpretations of that passage, and the only ones who use it in the manner suggested by President Obama are those who are using faulty reasoning: assuming the conclusion and then tailoring their analysis to fit the conclusion.
That's nonsense, and you know it. Any argument from exegesis can be construed to follow from an assumed conclusion (Indeed, its pretty easy to make that argument about many judicial opinions, scientific studies, and nearly anything else), because exegesis isn't limited to information in the passage being analyzed. Instead, the person critiquing the passage has to draw on contemporary historical sources, if they exist, and the larger Bible itself. One could claim that these sources were only drawn in order to make a point that was already held in mind, and that may be the case. However, as I said exegesis doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. The point is that a particular case can be made for this particular interpretation of the passage, not that it is the only case that can be made.
This is basically what Polonius was saying earlier about being able to make the Bible say nearly anything you want, not simply in more liberal readings, but also trying to appeal to textual literalism.
biccat wrote:
There are better passages in the Bible that teach the concept of caring for your fellow man.
There are, but they aren't as rhetorically poignant, or so commonly used in slogan.
biccat wrote:
This type of grandstanding simply shows that Barry's religious views are superficial at best.
Yes, it shows that he's a politician, and likely not especially religious, or at least considers religion less important than his political career. He wouldn't be the first such politician, nor will he be the last.
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."
Except, of course, that the way the two sides approach the issue is entirely different, which has already been explained clearly to you.
You didn't respond to any post that actually pointed out the differences, so instead you just repeated your original claim and pretend it's a response. You're getting lazier biccat.
I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.
I don't understand how anyone could be intellectually dishonest, no matter the subject. I mean, there must surely be a voice in their head saying 'okay, maybe that sounds good but seriously you know it's bs'. And yet here you are, more dishonest than ever.
I mean, fething hell, you at least used to respond to the points people made, and invent reasons to ignore them. Now you don't even bother doing that, so why bother posting at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:As opposed to a Muslim Marxist, as he has been labelled in the past (despite those two things being pretty much incompatible.)
If you ignore the atheist part of communism, something communist countries have been willing to do at various times, then you start to see considerable similarities between the two, most notably where the social emphasis of Islam lines with communist values.
It's a large part of the reason so many Islamic states aligned themselves with the Soviets during the Cold War. Really, a lot of what we're seeing playing out now is because at the start of the Cold War the Mid East backed the wrong horse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:The key is GIVE to charity, not have taken from you and passed out as the Gov't pleased.
An individual GIVING freely to the charity of his/her choice is a great thing. It was the individual giving freely that was to help him/her earn a place in heaven, not the amount of taxes they paid.
Yeah, because the key is all in whether money is given as part of socially agreed laws or as an initiative from a private individual. Don't for one second think Jesus' priority would be the lives of the poor, and that he wouldn't give gak how the money got there, only that it did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:And nothing was ever said about giving everything to the government. Government was not viewed positively at the time. Something about Romans and Armageddon and all that.
Except that's bs.
Romans 13:7
"Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority."
And I think we can stop with the bs about how it'd be so much better if it was all private charity, and no government welfare. We all know that people aren't complaining about whether the money given to the poor is taken by force or by charity, we know you're complaining about money being given at all.
If there was genuine concern for the poor, then you'd know that relying on charity was tried, and found terribly wanting. Go look at conditions for the poor in 1900, and then stop pretending that private charity can solve that problem. Once you do that, then all the rest of this nonsense just falls away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote: What the hell do aussies care about US politics?
I started my time on-line on a site for roleplaying games, and in between reading arguments over D&D 3 and if roleplaying was in permanent decline or a golden age, I got to reading the threads on American politics. I had a lot of pre-conceived notions, but the people on that forum, both left and right wingers, were a very smart bunch and they taught me a hell of a lot. From there it American politics became a hobby of mine.
And that, by the way, is what should be happening here. You Americans should be teaching the rest of us the politics of your country, and informing us where we're wrong. That isn't happening because, unfortunately, you know very, very little about the politics in your country, and most of what you do know is utterly, comically wrong.
I'm more worried that an Aussie who follows your politics as a hobby knows so much more about than you do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:Yeah, organized religion when mingled with official political policy has done a lot to improve the world. That's why all the theocratic-based countries are also the most advanced, I guess.
The point I made earlier is that there's a fundamental difference between taking the moral teachings from one's religious upbringing and looking to make those policy, and in espousing one religion as the one, true religion of a nation.
For instance, believing the state should have policies to help the poor because you were taught in religious studies that a good society looks after the poor, is fundamentally no different to believing in policies to help the poor because you read humanist arguments for the same.
This is massively different to people in the US right now who believe that the USA is a Christian nation, and that this ought to be enshrined in law. These people are Christian dominionists, and they are fairly common in the Republican party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:As far as entertainment value is concerned I have to say this thread has been very interesting indeed.
Glad you enjoyed yourself. I've just found the whole exercise sad, to be perfectly honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I think if the quotes Biccat put up from President O had instead been said by President W, there would have been a lot more mockery of it by the anti-religious crowd. Seems the current Pres gets a few more breaks than the last one.
People who hated Bush's actions in Gitmo are entirely silent on Obama doing the same. Whereas people who were entirely behind Bush's invasion of Iraq were intensely critical of Obama's actions in Libya.
That's politics. All you can do is try to keep a level head, see through the bs where you can, and do your absolute level best to avoid adding any bs of your own.
sebster wrote:
Don't for one second think Jesus' priority would be the lives of the poor, and that he wouldn't give gak how the money got there, only that it did.
Whether or not Jesus favored the poor is debatable. Generally, people interpret, for example Matthew 19:24 as regarding only the rich who idolize (Its more complicated than that, but for the sake of brevity.) their wealth. Who might be said to idolize their wealth is another question, though.
In essence, being rich isn't bad, but it often leads people to do bad things, and thereby become bad people.
sebster wrote:
Romans 13:7
"Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority."
There's also:
Mark 12:17 wrote:
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
sebster wrote:
We all know that people aren't complaining about whether the money given to the poor is taken by force or by charity, we know you're complaining about money being given at all.
I don't think that's true, not in the vast majority of cases. Some people may object to helping the poor, but in general the opposition is centered on either government intervention, or the use of force to induce action. Now, there are problems with both of those positions, but not nearly as many as those based on hating poor people.
sebster wrote:
I'm more worried that an Aussie who follows your politics as a hobby knows so much more about than you do.
dogma wrote:Whether or not Jesus favored the poor is debatable.
But he absolutely, completely 100% did favour poor. And it wasn’t just a case of favouring the poor, but speaking directly to them and, in a sense, only to them.
“The Bible itself provides ample examples of laws that modify the unbridled rights of property owners: we are commanded to leave the corners of our fields unharvested, and to harvest our crops but once. Any remaining produce becomes the property of the poor, and they are legally entitled to access to that yield. Mandatory funds are established so the poor can sustain themselves, and the rich were obligated to provide food, clothing and sustenance for the widow, the orphan and the poor. Ancient Israel provided community education for all (male) children. One legal standard applied to rich and poor alike, with all contributing their fair share in tax revenue. Fields are to lie fallow every seventh (Sabbatical) and 50th (Jubilee) years to renew their bounty. While the market forces of supply and demand were the baseline for ancient Israel’s economic activity, both Bible and Talmud delineate a prohibition of excessive profits, which were held to be sinful and impermissible.”
That isn’t just a call for charity, it is law demanded for the sake of social justice.
In essence, being rich isn't bad, but it often leads people to do bad things, and thereby become bad people.
I agree with that. But ‘doing bad things’ includes keeping that money for yourself and not giving it to the poor.
I don't think that's true, not in the vast majority of cases. Some people may object to helping the poor, but in general the opposition is centered on either government intervention, or the use of force to induce action. Now, there are problems with both of those positions, but not nearly as many as those based on hating poor people.
I used to think much the same, but over time it just made less and less sense to think of people who wanted to do something, but rejected it being done on their behalf. I don’t think people look at their pay cheque, and bemoan the money taken by government that otherwise they’d totally give to the poor.
They may not think they’d actually just keep their money, and that if government didn’t take so much they’d totally be more generous, but if you look at society before widespread welfare, you just don’t see more charity.
In fact, studies have shown a positive correlation between the national tax burden and charitable giving (likely explained not as causation, but that a society with a strong social emphasis is likely to accept a higher rate of tax and also donate more to charity).
sebster wrote:
But he absolutely, completely 100% did favour poor. And it wasn’t just a case of favouring the poor, but speaking directly to them and, in a sense, only to them.
If you really want to argue about this, I'm willing to, but not now (Superbowl party aftermath), but I grew up around clergy and the Bible. I know thing or two about exegesis.
Just to throw it out there as an example, my UCC (Very liberal denomination) father doesn't even believe Jesus necessarily favored the poor.
I'll say roughly the same thing I said to biccat, exegesis isn't about proving that there is only one right answer, or that any given alternative answer is correct.
sebster wrote:
I agree with that. But ‘doing bad things’ includes keeping that money for yourself and not giving it to the poor.
That's one interpretation, but not the only one. When anyone, politicians or otherwise, use the Bible its purely rhetorical. And I know very few clergyman (And I know tons of clergyman) that would claim otherwise, they might dress it up, but they know what they're really saying.
If you don't want to take my word, and you shouldn't, ask yourself why not returning your wealth to the poor is bad?
sebster wrote:
I used to think much the same, but over time it just made less and less sense to think of people who wanted to do something, but rejected it being done on their behalf. I don’t think people look at their pay cheque, and bemoan the money taken by government that otherwise they’d totally give to the poor.
I know people that do. Granted, many are often worried about children being taught about condoms, and safe sex or abortion, but others really just dislike seeing that taxes, federal or otherwise, are deducted from their wages.
Granted, I think most of them would give less to the poor, or the argument made seemingly implies that, but it doesn't mean they hold malice towards the poor.
P.S.: If anyone ever tells you that taxation is theft, ask them if killing is murder.
dogma wrote:If you really want to argue about this, I'm willing to, but not now (Superbowl party aftermath), but I grew up around clergy and the Bible. I know thing or two about exegesis.
Just to throw it out there as an example, my UCC (Very liberal denomination) father doesn't even believe Jesus necessarily favored the poor.
If you mean 'did he think the poor were inherently better than the rich?' then I'll grant the answer can fall either way.
I simply mean that Jesus was very much about the need to help the poor. That doing so isn't just charity, but a fundamental need.
That's one interpretation, but not the only one. When anyone, politicians or otherwise, use the Bible its purely rhetorical. And I know very few clergyman (And I know tons of clergyman) that would claim otherwise, they might dress it up, but they know what they're really saying.
I'm sorry, but arguing that the bible could be interpreted that a rich man shouldn't necessarily give to the poor is just crazy.
If you don't want to take my word, and you shouldn't, ask yourself why not returning your wealth to the poor is bad?
My opinion is not the opinion of Jesus. Nor is 'giving all of one's wealth to the poor' a sensible line of debate, because it opens up issues of inefficiency (exactly how well is the guy with mental disorders going to go with a majority share in a company) that do not exist when you simply talk of giving to the poor.
I know people that do. Granted, many are often worried about children being taught about condoms, and safe sex or abortion, but others really just dislike seeing that taxes, federal or otherwise, are deducted from their wages.
Granted, I think most of them would give less to the poor, or the argument made seemingly implies that, but it doesn't mean they hold malice towards the poor.
And once you realise it is very unlikely that they would give as much, it becomes clear that the argument over being 'forced' to give is very shallow, and what they really resent is being unable to keep that money for themselves.
P.S.: If anyone ever tells you that taxation is theft, ask them if killing is murder.
sebster wrote:
I simply mean that Jesus was very much about the need to help the poor. That doing so isn't just charity, but a fundamental need.
Well, it isn't really about the poor, so much as the needy. They are similar ideas, but they are not the same.
One can be poor, and not needy.
sebster wrote:
I'm sorry, but arguing that the bible could be interpreted that a rich man shouldn't necessarily give to the poor is just crazy.
The rich man should give to the needy man, but rich and poor (and needy) do not not carry the same weight as they do today.
Again, to paraphrase what I said to biccat, exegesis is more complicated than most know.
sebster wrote:
And once you realise it is very unlikely that they would give as much, it becomes clear that the argument over being 'forced' to give is very shallow, and what they really resent is being unable to keep that money for themselves.
Even then, though, the person saying they don't like being forced to give isn't necessarily going to give less. Its just that the total gift is not likely to exceed the total taxation, or be applied as effectively given state standards.
Edit: Keep in mind, I think taxation is necessary to any modern state. I'm merely trying to explain why charity is lesser than taxation without resorting to a distaste for the poor.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I think if the quotes Biccat put up from President O had instead been said by President W, there would have been a lot more mockery of it by the anti-religious crowd. Seems the current Pres gets a few more breaks than the last one.
You mean like having the largest media outlet in the country claiming you're a secret muslim raised in a madrassa, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, is waging a war on christianity, and aren't actually a citizen of the country?
Not to mention, of course, Mustardgate.
I didn't know ABC said these things. Really, or are you mistakenly referring to a second rate cable station like its the dark abode of Mordor, again.
dogma wrote:Well, it isn't really about the poor, so much as the needy. They are similar ideas, but they are not the same.
One can be poor, and not needy.
That's a fair point. One can also be needy, but not poor, if you think of a reasonably affluent person who's undergoing an immediate crisis.
The rich man should give to the needy man, but rich and poor (and needy) do not not carry the same weight as they do today.
I don't think that's true. What we consider poor in the developed world has changed, but there's still plenty of old school, biblical style poverty out there in the world.
Even then, though, the person saying they don't like being forced to give isn't necessarily going to give less. Its just that the total gift is not likely to exceed the total taxation, or be applied as effectively given state standards.
Sure, at which point you're looking at someone who complains about how much they have to give, claims they'd rather choose to give, and we all know they'd choose to give much less than they presently give, then it's fair to say it isn't about choice at all, but about quantity.
Edit: Keep in mind, I think taxation is necessary to any modern state. I'm merely trying to explain why charity is lesser than taxation without resorting to a distaste for the poor.
Oh sure, I understand that. What I'm trying to say is that the story people weave about how they dislike tax because it is forced, and not voluntary, is just a story, a cover up over the plain and simple fact that what they don't like is having to give their money to someone else.
biccat wrote:I always find it amusing how far non-Americans are willing to stretch their arguments to defend someone who they're ideologically in step with.
Especially when their argument is, essentially, "It's OK when the guys I like do it, it's not OK when the guys I don't like do it."
I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.
I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.
The Bible contains 10 commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal".
Does that mean theft should be legalised in the USA owing to the separation of state and religion?
(Looks at W-2 form and the amount of money the government just took from me)
Wait, theft isn't legalized now?
As a university student who receives some government aid for tuition, I thank you most humbly.
sebster wrote:
I don't think that's true. What we consider poor in the developed world has changed, but there's still plenty of old school, biblical style poverty out there in the world.
Yes and no. Poverty is a flexible concept, and basically just what we consider it to be. If most everyone owns a Rolls Royce, and some schmuck shows up in a Lexus, he looks poor by comparison.
Now, if we're discussing the kind of poverty that involves not being able to eat, drink, or take shelter, that hasn't changed.
sebster wrote:
Sure, at which point you're looking at someone who complains about how much they have to give, claims they'd rather choose to give, and we all know they'd choose to give much less than they presently give, then it's fair to say it isn't about choice at all, but about quantity.
For some people that's certainly true, but to draw a brief analogy:
I love math, but I hate math class. I view mathematics as a puzzle, and teachers of it as a hindrance. I read mathematics journals in my free time, but God help me if I'll ever take another course in the subject.
sebster wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that the story people weave about how they dislike tax because it is forced, and not voluntary, is just a story, a cover up over the plain and simple fact that what they don't like is having to give their money to someone else.
We're really only disagreeing in terms of, well, degree. I know plenty of people that are exactly like that, but I also know people that legitimately either dislike government on principle, or simply dislike being told what to do.
Of course, what they like really only matters insofar as one can compel them to do something.
No matter how long the debate on whether a religion is right or wrong goes on, only one thing is certain, people these days do not understand what the Founding Fathers meant by separating Church and state. As my great government professor would say, "They were afraid of tyrrany." At the time, the King of England was using his alleged divine right to 'govern' the people how he wanted. On top of that, if you didn't agree with him and the Church of England (which he also was the head of) then you were an unloyal traitor to him and God. <-THIS is what they were afraid of, not someone putting the Ten Commandments on display in public buildings (just using this as an example in my post, not starting a debate over it ).
The fact is, America was founded with religious freedom so that the citizens can decided what they believe is true instead of bowing to one person who claims to be devinely better than than they are. Continuing with the freedom of choice, our nation is supposed to be all inclusive, not all exclusive. As my man Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." The same is true for politics of a country based on religious freedom, you can has whatever you want. Those that say things like, " I am offended by the Ten Commandments," should also remember that
1) America also has freedom of speech, Lil Wayne can put what he wants in a song (though its offensive IMO), and Westboro Baptist folks can put whatever they want on a sign (which happens to disturb me as I am also Baptist, we aren't all crazy).
2) You don't have to look at them, though regulating the size and choice of placement seems to be a good political move to make everyone happy with a little compromise.
And yes, everybody should be interested in America as we are the greatest experiment in human history. if you like America.
).