![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sarah Palin spoke in Cincinnati yesterday. She's dropped Ayers-the-terrorist from her stump attack against Obama, and has added in Joe-the-plumber with the 'horrifying' tag that Obama wants to "spread your wealth around" -- recited to a chorus of boos from the white-bread audience. This obviously plays well to the Republican base.
Which makes me wonder. The Republican base is largely conservative Christians, who are reputed to follow Jesus' example and teachings. Now, I don't have a dog in this theological fight; in fact, I don't think there's a dog at all. But...
Certainly Jesus wasn't against taxation ("Render unto Caesar" and all that). So given the two tax plans put forward by the candidates, I wonder which one Jesus would prefer: a tax plan that gives the largest tax decreases to the wealthiest people (McCain's plan); or the one that would give the largest tax decreases to the poorest people while asking the wealthy to shoulder more of the tax burden (Obama's plan)?
Which makes me wonder. The Republican base is largely conservative Christians, who are reputed to follow Jesus' example and teachings. Now, I don't have a dog in this theological fight; in fact, I don't think there's a dog at all. But...
Certainly Jesus wasn't against taxation ("Render unto Caesar" and all that). So given the two tax plans put forward by the candidates, I wonder which one Jesus would prefer: a tax plan that gives the largest tax decreases to the wealthiest people (McCain's plan); or the one that would give the largest tax decreases to the poorest people while asking the wealthy to shoulder more of the tax burden (Obama's plan)?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
Gasp!
communism!socialism!From:
Re: Gasp!
From:
Re: Gasp!
But hey, let's look at it another way. Instead of by income, let's tax in kind. Nice lotta words you're able to churn out there, Mr. Leigh; be a shame -- possibly a criminal one -- if you didn't spread that verbal wealth around. We can see some people from right here who aren't nearly as articulate, or verbose. We'll just compel you, under penalty of law, to write for them. (And when we say "write for them," we mean it: you must write what they want, the way they want it written. If the subject and/or POV bother you, well, just lie back and think of
EnglandPublic Financing. It's the same principle, after all.) And oh, by the way, because you are so prolific (though not actually Silverbergian, it's true), we'll make you devote, say, 50% of your writing time to others, while requiring that not-so-fast guy over there who only writes shorts published in Analog to devote a mere 30%. But hey, that's fair, because you've got more than him.Sounds like a wonderful plan to me. I can't imagine who wouldn't think it socially just. Say, I've Got This Great Idea For A Novel...(tm)
From:
Re: Gasp!
That's not socialism. That's a different tax structure.
Write your own novel. Maybe you'll get a six figure advance and have to pay those higher taxes. Wouldn't that be awful?
From:
Re: Gasp!
Not just because they can afford it. Also because an argument can be made that the richer you are, the more you have benefited from that for which we are all taxed. You are being charged a higher price for that larger slice of the pie.
No, I am not talking about ignoring one's own skills and sacrifices. I think "all created equal" holds under the law, not in general. I don't begrudge the rich for being rich of their own endeavor.
But no one, including the rich, get there on their own. They benefit, too. A company that makes its CEO rich through the work of a great talent pool has education (publicly provided) to thank. When the prize architect works for the gated community, the community benefits more than the ghetto.
More importantly, it is to everyone's benefit that we clean the ghetto -- including the rich guy. He has the most to lose if they riot; he has the most to lose if his talent pool dries up. He has the most to lose if no one can buy his product for lack of money, and his business sinks.
Unchecked capitalism is merely the economic version of "might makes right." The Constitution of this country specifically sets out to deny that premise.
Of course unchecked communism is insane. Capitalism works because it takes into account human greed and weakness. Communism fails because it assumes the perfect human being.
Personally, I see socialism as a mid-ground, although I like it to lean towards the capitalistic side.
If you won't help others out of charity, at least do it out of enlightened self-interest.
From:
Re: Gasp!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Since we're talking about Michigan, here, I'm not sure what to think about this. I expect the first to fail, but then, some Michiganders have finally heard Jennifer Granholme's plea that we diversify our economy, so ... I expect the second one to fail, but am gobsmacked it made it on the ballot at all. (Ann Arbor debates this every local election, but that's Ann Arbor.) Haven't yet read either one completely, so I don't know how I'll vote. Legal language matters, and sometimes it doesn't say what the proposers meant to say ...
We already defined marriage as solely a man/woman thing. One at a time. We also applied this definition to anything that might be construed as a marriage or any relationship having the benefits of marriage -- we did not include the kitchen sink. Someone must not have been paying attention.
Believe it or not, this has caused great distress in both State offices (UoM, for instance) and the car companies. Their HR departments still haven't sorted it out after 4 years.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
My background is in Christianity (though I'm most definitely not there any more) and a Christianity very focused on Jesus personally, as opposed to on the church. There is absolutely no doubt, from a theological perspective, that Jesus himself and Republican economics are diametrically opposed. (I can even argue it from the other side, how Republican economics *can* be stated to be Christian-based [ie care of community/poor coming from charity rather than government] but if you go to the *text*, which conservative Christians love to go to, there is simply no two ways around it.)
But it's like people check their brains at the door when it comes to economics, and follow their social politics and the concept of "I'm a traditional conservative" into the Republican camp.
I'm not saying people are stupid if they disagree with me, because I think the researcher at YourMorals.org had it right. It's about different priorities, etc. But I do believe that people *suspend their critical thinking* about economics and don't apply their religion to it, and instead follow a more "gut level" type of politics.
And I firmly believe that people spin their religious interpretations whichever they want in any given moment, and that any number of Christian's faith has absolutely zilch to do with Jesus himself.
But bottom line, it doesn't. make. sense. And no amount of Republican spin can distort it at the base level. Jesus' teaching = selfless poverty and the giving up of all personal wealth to care for others. Easier for a camel through the eye of a needle... that's pretty unequivocal.
From:
no subject
I think there's a clue in Matthew 25:31-46. It's the passage in which Jesus warns that the people who don't, in effect, use their own bounty to help the unfortunate will "go away to eternal punishment".
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
P.S. The homeless mission in the city I lived in was run by a group of churches that didn't include the LDS. ;)
From:
Playing Devil's advocate
1. Like the self-styled "green" party, the so-called "Christian Right" is an extreme, busy and vocal tail trying to wag their party. It is unfair to assume their "values" to be intrinsic to the party as a whole. It is, however, fair to blame the party dogs for allowing themselves to be wagged.
2. A healthy economy facilitates better lives for everyone -- perhaps not equally, but ... So, a Christian economic policy would be one that benefits the economy.
Many Republicans of all religious colors think that the best way to protect the US is to increase defense spending; the best way to improve the economy is to cut taxes; and the best way to protect Constitutional values is by diminishing the reach of government.
I happen to think that all those things are true at times, and at those times, such a policy is, indeed, directed at both the poor and the rich. We all live by the state of our economy.
However, I think none of them are true at thistime. I think the party went wrong idolizing Reagan. It has turned into a one-trick pony.
4. There is, I think, an inherent hypocrisy in the Republican economic stance, but it isn't religious in nature.
If one truly believes in a free market ("free" meaning "free of manipulation by government," not "free for all comers") then any government intervention is a Bad Thing. Cutting taxes to encourage investment (the basics of Supply-Side theory) is government manipulation. If the market decides that it doesn't want to invest, so be it. In the long run, the market is always right, since it self-corrects. (It might do much damage in the short term, of course, which is usually what prompts the government intervention.)
So the hypocrisy is in steadfastly advocating a single government intervention policy, and never any other government intervention policy, in the name of "free market." The religious hypocrisy is from those self-declared "Christians" who support this stance regardless of whom and when it hurts. You can make an argument for that. But I'll note that there are many Young Republicans who are working hard to change this particular trait of the party.
There are enough problems with the Republican Party -- we don't need to vilify the party as a whole gratuitously. :-)
From:
Naming the Christians
Now, I will agree that most of what we hear in the news about and from these people seems to be grounded in Leviticus. So I liked this.
However, I've come to believe it is insufficient. I think they do go beyond Leviticus -- they skip over the Gospels straight to Paul and his letters.
So, I'm trying out "Pauline Leviticans."
Any bites?
From:
Re: Naming the Christians
From:
Re: Naming the Christians
Long ago, I developed my own brand of shorthand, so I could get down the content of lectures. Not the understanding -- that came when I typed up and organized my notes.
Anyway, I used X for the obvious "ex" (..tend, ..port) but also for the "Christ" portion of Christian or any other Christ____ word. No, of course I didn't make it up -- I've lived with Xmas all my live.
I also used X to mean "cross" as in "x-seeding."
So, Xtian doesn't read Christian to me because "Christ" already has a t. So I read it as crosstian.
Which doesn't fit, either.
But, that's just my little idiosyncrasy. Go for it if it works.
From:
no subject
I'm pretty sure he wanted us to share, not let people go hungry, be homeless, be persecuted, or go without the medical care they need etc.
I'm pretty sure he was against people be so rich others go without.
From:
no subject
Of course, this, then, begs the question: Since Jesus was adamantly against mixing Church and State ...
From:
Hmm...
Boy are they going to be surprised when they get to Heaven and find it full of poor people. I bet they wind up standing outside kvetching with the terrorists who were expecting the 72 virgins.
From:
Re: Hmm...
[goes to get a rag to wipe down her monitor]
From:
Re: Hmm...
I just think that many Christians have an oddly skewed vision of the Bible in general and Jesus in particular. I mean, look at the guy: He was poor. He was homeless more than once. He was unemployed more than once (not counting messiah duties, but his carpentry career). He was widely hated in many of the places he visited, and only became really popular later. He gave some very savvy advice, but it's advice that's rather hard to follow. Simple in concept, but very difficult emotionally. So people tend to gloss over that stuff.
From:
Re: Hmm...
From:
Re: Hmm...
LOL
From:
Re: Hmm...
From:
no subject
There's a great book that deals with this issue (OK, it actually felt like I was being yelled at the entire read, but it does parse out the issues): God's Politics by Jim Wallis. The main argument is, basically, that budgets are moral documents and thus good christians can't support the current administration.
Or something very close to that. It's been awhile...