Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Ouze wrote:I'd greatly prefer that elected politicians leave their faith in their places of worship.

But than, the world might be a better place and we can't have that now can we?

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.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Since so many people here are against religion in government, I thought this might be interesting.

You were wrong.

I don't know.

As far as entertainment value is concerned I have to say this thread has been very interesting indeed.

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.

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?

Wins thread.


Just another day in Dakka OT...

CT GAMER wrote:[Just another day in Dakka OT...

Beats singing Kenny Chesney songs.

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?

Not to mention, of course, Mustardgate.

Ouze wrote:

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!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM

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.

Ahtman wrote:Why do people outside of a country care about the political events of other countries?

Because the political events of a country effect its economy, which effects our economy.

Melissia wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Why do people outside of a country care about the political events of other countries?

Because the political events of a country effect its economy, which effects our economy.

I think you may have made an error somewhere in your 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."

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.

I'll admit, it makes my job much easier.

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.

There’s also the point that Christianity is somehow only about charity, and not justice;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-bradley-shavit-artson/supply-demand-isnt-enough_b_1178974.html

“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.

Pretty much.

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.

Ouze wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.