Would you still vote Republican if....?

[FirstSunday33ad]

The recent “Would you still vote for Bush” poll elicited so many interesting replies, it has inspired me to investigate this question further.

Suppose the Democratic candidates were Bill Clinton and Al Gore. You have to vote (no abstentions coward) and you MUST vote for either the Republican or Democratic ticket (no sneaky third party bolt holes either).

BTW - this is anonymous so don't worry about being "outed"

You can vote for more than one choice.

[TyRockwell]

Any un brainwashed person, as I would vote Republican.

[Sheepdog]

hillary would make bozo seem like a good president

[brother vinny]

Once a talk show host read from what ostensibly was Hilary Clinton's then newly-released book, It Takes a Village. Whole passages were read, and liberal callers phoned in to defend the message of the book. Turns out, the book wasn't It Takes a Village at all, but a copy of Mein Kampf with the Clinton book dust cover wrapped around it. Hilarity, as could be expected, ensued.

Point is (other than the joy of retelling that little anecdote), I don't get why liberals are so quick to place Hitler in the right wing camp. Hitler's National Socialism bears more resemblance to the Democratic-Socialism proffered by the left; the primary difference (AFAICT) is that the Democrats' Final Solution, rather than calling for the deaths of a whole race of people, instead calls for the deaths of those lives the Democrats consider pragmatically inexpedient (i.e., the unborn, the terminally ill, and, in some extreme cases, the mentally handicapped and the homeless).

[FirstSunday33ad]

Well it is reassuring that at least none would vote for Hitler if the only other option was Clinton.

Uh...way to go...I guess..

[TyRockwell]

hillary would make bozo seem like a good president
Good one! Bozo would be less dangerous, too.

[brother vinny]

Well it is reassuring that at least none would vote for Hitler if the only other option was Clinton.

Uh...way to go...I guess..

So, FirstSunday33ad, since you haven't melted down yet, could you explain why Hitler would be a fitting Republican candidate when his ideals more closely reflect the Left?

[Sheepdog]

vinny. how dare you point out the elephant in the hitler room :hehe:

[themuzicman]

I agonized over Bozo the clown... close race.

Michael

[FirstSunday33ad]

So, FirstSunday33ad, since you haven't melted down yet, could you explain why Hitler would be a fitting Republican candidate when his ideals more closely reflect the Left?

:lol: Yeah everybody wants to distance themselves from the definition of evil.

Sorry, but Hitler's policies were closer to Republican values instead of Democrat. He was vehemently anti-Socialist/Communist, he broke up trade-unions, made homosexuality a crime, claimed to be guided in his actions by a "higher power", was a militarist and believed war was preferable to negotiation. Further, Nazi Germany was a capitalist regime that did not confiscate or nationalize property.

Given the number of rightist who at the time and even to this day, admit admiration of at least some of Hitler's policies, your question is begged.

Oh BTW - Hitler was also a Catholic

[The Curtmudgeon]

... claimed to be guided in his actions by a "higher power", ...

I find it interesting that you include this in a list of Hitler's characteristics that mark him as Right-wing, yet you label yourself a Christian and claim not to be Right-wing.

Do you, or do you not, claim to be guided in your actions by a "higher power"? If yes, admit that you're Right-wing; if no, admit that you're not a Christian.

Or else admit that your tirade is bunch of claptrap to begin with.


Oh BTW - Hitler was also a Catholic

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Your mind has been stuck in Park for a long time, hasn't it?

The (you just feed it sound-bites and don't bother it with facts) Curtmudgeon

[Meta Knight]

I still don't see how the "National Socialist" party can be considered right-wing.


Oh BTW - Hitler was also a Catholic

Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Catholics call their own religion "the spawn of Bolshevism."

[Sheepdog]

:lol: Yeah everybody wants to distance themselves from the definition of evil.

indeed. perhaps you should go read up on what the word "Nazi" is an abbreviation for.


Sorry, but Hitler's policies were closer to Republican values instead of Democrat. He was vehemently anti-Socialist/Communist,

you are about half right on that. he certainly wanted to wipe communism off the map. arguably, his front into Russia was his downfall...


he broke up trade-unions, made homosexuality a crime, claimed to be guided in his actions by a "higher power", was a militarist and believed war was preferable to negotiation.

likewise he was into eugenics, and was highly influenced in that regard by American progressives. Probably a major reason why eugenics isn't so vocally popular with you guys, these days :whistle:

at any rate, you miss the big picture. Hitler, like every other socialist dictator with a god complex, was driven by a vision of utopia. the arian race, in his mind, represented the ideal of human race, and so anything that deviated from that, whether it be Hebrew, black, crippled, mentally ill, had to be culled from the herd.

to be fair, most socialists aren't blatant racists. but also to be fair, socialism usually gives way to totalitarianism. by it's very nature, socialism consolidates power.


Further, Nazi Germany was a capitalist regime that did not confiscate or nationalize property.

only someone who is utterly oblivious to history can make such a foolish statement. "private property" was a facade in Nazi Germany. sure, the state didn't officially confiscate private property, but then neither have Sweden or other incremental socialist states. their use of price controls and "windfall profit" taxes would make Hillary blush.


Given the number of rightist who at the time and even to this day, admit admiration of at least some of Hitler's policies, your question is begged.

like vegetarianism?


Oh BTW - Hitler was also a Catholic

Right. Hitler was about as Catholic as any crafty politician is Christian in a nation with a Christian majority. In reality, he sought to bring back a form of Paganism not unlike those that existed before Christianity came to Germany. Paying lip service to the church was necessary, but don't be fooled. Had the time come, he would have put Christians through the gas chambers.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I find it interesting that you include this in a list of Hitler's characteristics that mark him as Right-wing, yet you label yourself a Christian and claim not to be Right-wing.

Do you, or do you not, claim to be guided in your actions by a "higher power"? If yes, admit that you're Right-wing; if no, admit that you're not a Christian.

Or else admit that your tirade is bunch of claptrap to begin with.

SIGH…..

Okay. First, belief in God or any Deity for that matter is separate from politics. You can be a Marxist and a Christian, you can be a Republican and a Christian.

Secondly. Exploitation of religious sentiment is generally a province of the Right, since non-religious people generally populate the Left. Therefore, there is a greater likelihood of a right-wing politician claiming a special blessing or the hand of providence than a left-wing politician (as is clearly evident today).

Therefore: Although Hitler was not a Christian, (in fact based on historical evidence, it is unlikely he gave much thought to religion at all) he never-the-less exploited the religious feeling in Germany to make himself attractive to the religious voter.

(really, if you are going to disagree with a point, you really should take the time to learn something about the topic being discussed)




Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Your mind has been stuck in Park for a long time, hasn't it?

The (you just feed it sound-bites and don't bother it with facts) Curtmudgeon

Hitler was a Catholic. He even went out of his way to boast about his Catholism in Mein Kampf. This does not mean that he followed Catholic dogma or was a Christian. Again, Hitler exploited religion in the same way he exploited everything else – to further his political goals. But he was a Catholic.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I still don't see how the "National Socialist" party can be considered right-wing.

The key word there is “National”.

At the time Hitler was given control of the German Worker’s Party (DAP) Communism and Revolutionary Socialism were on the rise and were advocating a revolutionary overthrow of the Government. One of the cornerstones of these groups was a rejection of the nation-state and nationalism. Hitler’s “National Socialist German Worker’s Party” (NSDAP) was a reply to this philosophy. He believed that the nation was the life of the people; without the nation there would be no culture, religion, family, “volk”. Germans – who were supermen “uber-menschen” would be mongrelized into a sub-human “unter-menschen” race.

According to Hitler, this anti-national Socialism was a conspiracy on the part of Jewish capitalists and Jewish Communists to destroy the “Aryan” race. Adopting the phrase “national socialist” in no way indicated that Hitler was a socialist or accepted the goals or ambitions of socialism. Rather it was a reply to the socialist call of “More for the working man” with “all for the nation-state”.

It is important to remember that when you are speaking of Hitler, it is impossible to put him into any ideological box. He was never committed to any philosophy beyond his own. When a principle – such as overthrow of the government – became a hindrance, he dropped it. When friends became obstacles, he murdered them – aka “the night of long knives”. Hitler was committed to himself and his fantasies; nothing else.

But in a wider general sense, Hitler was a rightist and has been accepted as such by history and by other rightists.


Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Catholics call their own religion "the spawn of Bolshevism."

Bolshevism was born in famine, war and oppression. It took the character it did because of some of the harshest conditions humanity has ever experienced. Marxism itself has been called the child of Judaism

BTW – pedantic point but Catholism couldn’t be “spawned” by Bolshevism; rather it would have to be the other way around.

[FirstSunday33ad]

indeed. perhaps you should go read up on what the word "Nazi" is an abbreviation for.
My German is very poor but it stands for : Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
In English, it is a short-form way of saying “National-Socialist”

you are about half right on that. he certainly wanted to wipe communism off the map. arguably, his front into Russia was his downfall...
In addition to Communism, he also wanted to wipe Slavic people off the map. The Russian campaign sped his downfall, but he had already lost the war before the invasion started.
he broke up trade-unions, made homosexuality a crime, claimed to be guided in his actions by a "higher power", was a militarist and believed war was preferable to negotiation.

likewise he was into eugenics, and was highly influenced in that regard by American progressives. Probably a major reason why eugenics isn't so vocally popular with you guys, these days
You have to stay with the times if you are going to make accusations like that. Eugenics was “popular” with every government of the time. Sterilization was practiced not only by the Germans, but by the US and Canada as well. It was not a “Left/Right” issue; both sides believed in it and practiced it.


at any rate, you miss the big picture. Hitler, like every other socialist dictator with a god complex, was driven by a vision of utopia. the arian race, in his mind, represented the ideal of human race, and so anything that deviated from that, whether it be Hebrew, black, crippled, mentally ill, had to be culled from the herd.
Yes, but it was the question of his more general policies that is under discussion. Do these more accurately reflect the right or the left? Historians and camp followers agree that these policies are more comfortable with the right than the left.


to be fair, most socialists aren't blatant racists. but also to be fair, socialism usually gives way to totalitarianism. by it's very nature, socialism consolidates power.
Tosh. Socialism no more gives way to totalitarianism than capitalism. Rather it is usually the reply of the right that brings in totalitarianism as a means of suppressing socialism. Totalitarianism is brought on a country by deliberate policy; it does not evolve.

only someone who is utterly oblivious to history can make such a foolish statement. "private property" was a facade in Nazi Germany. sure, the state didn't officially confiscate private property, but then neither have Sweden or other incremental socialist states. their use of price controls and "windfall profit" taxes would make Hillary blush.
So you are only arguing with the definition of “confiscate” not with the statement itself. Firstly a correction: Jews, Communists, Trade-Unions, etc (any one or group labelled and national enemy) did have their property confiscated. Secondly; business loved the National Socialists. As a result of their rearming of Germany, profits boomed (much as Reagan’s expansion of the military resulted in the ‘80’s “boom”).
That said, the Nazi’s were control freaks and did have economic laws in place that would permit them to rearm, expand the military, start the Luftwaffe and build the autobahn on credit and barter. By 1939, Nazi Germany was effectively bankrupt. (much like the US by the 1990’s).

like vegetarianism?
strawman

Right. Hitler was about as Catholic as any crafty politician is Christian in a nation with a Christian majority. In reality, he sought to bring back a form of Paganism not unlike those that existed before Christianity came to Germany. Paying lip service to the church was necessary, but don't be fooled. Had the time come, he would have put Christians through the gas chambers.

The first truly correct thing you have said. Yes Hitler was a Catholic, but he was not a Christian. He exploited religious feeling but had none of his own. Eventually, had he been successful, he would have instituted a personal religion that deified himself.

[Meta Knight]

BTW – pedantic point but Catholism couldn’t be “spawned” by Bolshevism; rather it would have to be the other way around.

That's not my point. Hitler called Christianity "the spawn of Bolshevism". And we all know how much he loooooved Bolshevism.

[TyRockwell]

Confiscation of property, via taxes, eminent domain, income redistribution, are all hallmaks of Democrats, who believe that a majority vote is all that is needed to deprive people of their their hard-earned money, or easy earned money, in order to advance their idea of equality of outcomes over and above the equal opportunity to succeed or fail. They want to abolish failure, supposing that successful people must have done something wrong or the wealth would be more evenly distributed. They believe and practice media manipulation, the silencing of opposition voices, and enact so-called "hate speech" laws.
These ideas make them socialist, left wingers, and a danger to freedom, just like Hitler, or Stalin, Lenin, the Bolshovics, Mussolini, and Mao, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega and the Sandanistas.
Republicans and Christians want less government, less centralized power, lower taxation, and NO income/property redistrubution. Democrats don't want to earn their own money, they want to get yours.
Peace and Truth
Ty

[FirstSunday33ad]

Confiscation of property, via taxes, eminent domain, income redistribution, are all hallmaks of Democrats, who believe that a majority vote is all that is needed to deprive people of their their hard-earned money, or easy earned money, in order to advance their idea of equality of outcomes over and above the equal opportunity to succeed or fail. They want to abolish failure, supposing that successful people must have done something wrong or the wealth would be more evenly distributed. They believe and practice media manipulation, the silencing of opposition voices, and enact so-called "hate speech" laws.
These ideas make them socialist, left wingers, and a danger to freedom, just like Hitler, or Stalin, Lenin, the Bolshovics, Mussolini, and Mao, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega and the Sandanistas.
Republicans and Christians want less government, less centralized power, lower taxation, and NO income/property redistrubution. Democrats don't want to earn their own money, they want to get yours.
Peace and Truth
Ty

"Republicans and Christians"?? So you mean I'm not a Christian because I want more government, more centralized power, higher taxation and a redistribution of income?

Could you please quote the scripture verse to support that position. If it is valid, I will stop being a socialist immediately since based on my reading of scripture, Jesus endorses a community effort and scorned individual greed.

[FirstSunday33ad]

That's not my point. Hitler called Christianity "the spawn of Bolshevism". And we all know how much he loooooved Bolshevism.

That is not what you originally wrote, but since it makes my point, I will allow it. (what kind of Leftist hated Bolshevism?) :ahem:

[TyRockwell]

"Republicans and Christians"?? So you mean I'm not a Christian because I want more government, more centralized power, higher taxation and a redistribution of income?

Could you please quote the scripture verse to support that position. If it is valid, I will stop being a socialist immediately since based on my reading of scripture, Jesus endorses a community effort and scorned individual greed.
I'll gladly provide the scriptures.

When Jesus was told by coveting chief priests, and teachers of the law, that the woman's expensive perfume, which she used to anoint Jesus, could have been sold, and the money given to the poor, he said, "Leave her alone! YOU have the poor with YOU always, and YOU may help them anytime YOU wish." Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8

The Tenth Commandment is: "You shall not covet...anything that belongs to your neighbor."
He had already said, "Do not steal." Coveting would seem to be redundant, only applicable to one's thought life, but in light of the confiscatory ability of government, you can see that using other people's money or goods is not giving, the prescribed method of helping the poor.

Peace and Truth,
Ty

[Meta Knight]

That is not what you originally wrote, but since it makes my point, I will allow it. (what kind of Leftist hated Bolshevism?) :ahem:
:sigh: You said Hitler was Catholic. I said, sarcastically, that I always hear Catholics call their religion "the spawn of Bolshevism". I figured it was obvious enough that I was referring to something Hitler had used to describe Catholicism (okay, Christianity, but there's little real distinction). Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

[FirstSunday33ad]

:sigh: You said Hitler was Catholic. I said, sarcastically, that I always hear Catholics call their religion "the spawn of Bolshevism". I figured it was obvious enough that I was referring to something Hitler had used to describe Catholicism (okay, Christianity, but there's little real distinction). Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

Dude, there is nothing wrong with my ability to comprehend a coherent sentance, but give me a break

"Catholics call their religion the spawn of Bolshevism" I think that should read "Catholics say their religion spawned (ie gave birth to) Bolshevism"

In your second post you had Hitler refer to Christianity, not Catholicism. In Mein Kampf Hitler explicitly states that he is Catholic and would remain Catholic. That he wrote this merely to win the favour of the Church and removes doubts that he was a Right-Wing atheist is acknowledged.

[Meta Knight]

Dude, there is nothing wrong with my ability to comprehend a coherent sentance, but give me a break
Well, don't blame me for your inability to detect sarcasm, then.


"Catholics call their religion the spawn of Bolshevism" I think that should read "Catholics say their religion spawned (ie gave birth to) Bolshevism"
Actually I said "I can't tell you how many times I've heard Catholics call their religion 'the spawn of Bolshevism'", but don't let any silly little thing like context get in your way. It was freaking sarcasm. Hitler called Christianity (again, little real distinction between Christianity and Catholicism) "the spawn of Bolshevism".


In your second post you had Hitler refer to Christianity, not Catholicism. In Mein Kampf Hitler explicitly states that he is Catholic and would remain Catholic. That he wrote this merely to win the favour of the Church and removes doubts that he was a Right-Wing atheist is acknowledged.

So if he was only writing it to curry the church's favor, why did you say he was Catholic?! The man said that the National Socialist party and Christianity cannot coexist, for Pete's sake!

[FirstSunday33ad]

When Jesus was told by coveting chief priests, and teachers of the law, that the woman's expensive perfume, which she used to anoint Jesus, could have been sold, and the money given to the poor, he said, "Leave her alone! YOU have the poor with YOU always, and YOU may help them anytime YOU wish." Matthew 26:11,Mark 14:7,and John 12:8

Okay, Firstly, let’s correct the context.

Matthew:

6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 there came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
12 For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
Mark:

3 And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure nard very costly; and she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head.
4 But there were some that had indignation among themselves, saying, To what purpose hath this waste of the ointment been made?
5 For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred shillings, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6 But Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
7 For ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them good: but me ye have not always
John:

3 Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.
4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, that should betray him, saith,
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor?
6 Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein.
7 Jesus therefore said, Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying.
8 For the poor ye have always with you; but me ye have not always.

Okay, firstly, we can see from the verses that it was not the “coveting chief priests, and teachers of the law” who protested, but his disciples – specifically Judas Iscariot – and his complaint was motivated more from a desire to pocket the proceeds for himself.

Secondly, Jesus’ rebuke; Jesus is not saying that the poor were not important nor was He saying that personal wealth and property takes precedence over aiding the poor. His reply is pretty clear: get your priorities straight. The Son of God was about to die. In a couple of days He was going to be taken from them. The poor would always be there to be helped. As important as that help was, AT THAT MOMENT it was more important to worship the Son of God while He was with them than help the poor -
This selection of verses does not prove your original statement that Christians oppose income distribution. Rather it is more in line with the foolish man who spent all his time building up worldly goods only to die before being able to enjoy them.


The Tenth Commandment is: "You shall not covet...anything that belongs to your neighbor."
He had already said, "Do not steal." Coveting would seem to be redundant, only applicable to one's thought life, but in light of the confiscatory ability of government, you can see that using other people's money or goods is not giving, the prescribed method of helping the poor.

Coveting another’s goods means desiring what someone has for yourself. It is more in line with “keeping up with the Joneses” than with income distribution. I for one do not desire a sprawling mansion, or a luxury car, or a $5,000.00 suit. Such excess is destroying the planet and impoverishing society. Rather, it is much better that we each have a house or car or clothes that suit our needs. I have no problem with Tom living in a mansion so long as his neighbour Fred doesn’t have to live in a hovel for him to afford it. If Tom needs to scale down a bit so Fred can rise to a better standard of housing, I think that is fair.

Stealing is taking what belongs to another for your own use and enjoyment without their permission. Taxes (and no doubt that is what you are implying here) are not stealing. They are the cost of maintaining a society for the mutual benefit of all. The rich and poor alike are supposed to derive a benefit from paying tax. The rich in infrastructure (water, power, police, fire, roads, etc) the poor in support (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing etc). Since everybody pays and everybody enjoys a benefit, there is no theft involved.

You have still not demonstrated that the Bible supports your original claim. Please take your time and try again – it is important.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Well, don't blame me for your inability to detect sarcasm, then.


Actually I said "I can't tell you how many times I've heard Catholics call their religion 'the spawn of Bolshevism'", but don't let any silly little thing like context get in your way. It was freaking sarcasm. Hitler called Christianity (again, little real distinction between Christianity and Catholicism) "the spawn of Bolshevism".



So if he was only writing it to curry the church's favor, why did you say he was Catholic?! The man said that the National Socialist party and Christianity cannot coexist, for Pete's sake!

Well we pounded that out didn't we? You know you would have saved a lot of typing if you had just said "sarcasm" and explained your point.

CIAO

[TyRockwell]

Your definitions of coveting are in error.
To covet, is to want what others have, to use it for your purposes. If your purpose is to give it to the poor, you still have coveted. When people set up a governmental entity, it requires taxes. But nowhere in scripture does it say that through the power of taxation, the poor are to be given other people's property. Your example of government being a means for the rich to have infrastructure, and at the same time government is to give to the poor is not found in scripture. God does not call rich people greedy. Greed is the excessive seeking after gain, the love of money. Even poor people can commit that sin.


It is true that people should give to the poor. But, the government is not God, and should not be paid to be a substitute for individuals' giving to the poor, nor should the government be set up as an alternative to the individual's trust in God for his needs.


God set up a system, from the beginning of blessings and curses. He said, "My people perish from lack of knowledge." God's people, who are poor, sometimes remain poor, but usually get their needs met. The answer to poor people is the knowledge that God blesses people who know his word and follow his ways. Psalm 1.
God promises success for those who do. This does not release the rich from giving, but in fact, makes him who gives more rich, for, "Give and it will be given unto you, good measure, pressed down and running over will men give into your bosom." So, income redistributionists will always have a beef with someone, either the rich, or God, supposing that one man's gain, is another man's loss. That is called the zero-sum game. It is contrary to God, founded upon a belief that God could not bless all people equally. That is untrue. Read the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, but you'll probably have a hard time getting through it, after verse fourteen.

Blessing is available to all humanity, but it comes from God, the the knowledge of him, his word and his ways. Even a rich man who doesn't know and follow God is living under a curse. Riches can be a curse. Likewise ignorance of God's ways keeps even his people in a state of lack. It does help the poor to be on the receiving end of charity, but it isn't a solution to poverty. When even a poor person begins to give, "it will be given back to him, good measure, pressed down and running over will men give into his bosom."

When Israel demanded from Samuel, a king, like other nations, God told Samuel, "They have not rejected you, but Me as their king." He went on to tell Samuel to tell the people that a king would conscript their sons into his army, require taxes to be paid to him, and take their lands and livestock for his use. God was telling the people they should trust him and Samuel, of whom it was said, "No word from his mouth ever fell to the ground." The list of things a king, 'human government,' would do, is clearly to be seen as not as good as trusting God.
None of what you said changes the fact that, especially since the Son of God is not physically present, that what he said still applies. It was not for that moment in time only, but for now also: "The poor you have with you always, (still true) and you can help them anytime you wish." Still true.

If God's people would learn this, they would be able to give a lot more to the poor, because they would be able to give less through the government, to do what they should be doing. Much of it is expended in the bureaucracy.

Instead, it is better to donate to relief organizations of good reputation. It should be spent on the poor, and a lot less of it go to padded pews and choir robes.

In the Love of the Truth,
Ty

[FirstSunday33ad]

Your definitions of coveting are in error.
To covet, is to want what others have, to use it for your purposes. If your purpose is to give it to the poor, you still have coveted. When people set up a governmental entity, it requires taxes. But nowhere in scripture does it say that through the power of taxation, the poor are to be given other people's property.

Well according to the dictionary definitions I have looked up, the generally agreed definition of “covet” is:

to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
intransitive verb : to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another

So your definition doesn’t quite work. To desire what others have so that you can give it to another, is not the true meaning of “covet”. However, even if it were, this still is not what social-government commits. What you are describing would be more in line with what the Roman government committed. Then, rich Romans were often accused of treason so the Emperor could seize their property and use it to pay the army or balance the budget.

Under a social democracy, taxation is based on ability to pay. The wealthy have a greater ability to pay than the poor or middle class; therefore they pay more. This tax is then used to correct inequalities in the system, ie, housing, food, clothing, schooling, etc. Since this betters society in general, everybody benefits from the results.


Your example of government being a means for the rich to have infrastructure, and at the same time government is to give to the poor is not found in scripture. God does not call rich people greedy. Greed is the excessive seeking after gain, the love of money. Even poor people can commit that sin.

No, it is not found in scripture, but then our society is not run like an Amish community. Not everything that we need in our government or society will be found in scripture. What is found in scripture however, is the repeated injunction to care for the poor, the sick, the outcast, the imprisoned, the widow and the orphan. The kingdoms of Judea and Israel were routinely condemned for working for the benefit of the wealthy while ignoring the needs of the widows and orphans (ie, the poor). It was not just the people who were condemned but the nation-state as well.


It is true that people should give to the poor. But, the government is not God, and should not be paid to be a substitute for individuals' giving to the poor, nor should the government be set up as an alternative to the individual's trust in God for his needs.

By the same token people, charities or churches are not God and shouldn’t be trusted as an alternative to trusting God for your needs. It makes no difference how God’s commandments are fulfilled only that they are fulfilled. If God has commanded us to care for the poor, we should expect our governments to obey that command as much as individuals. Otherwise, you are claiming that there are two sets of commands: one to the individual “care for the poor” and one for the government “ignore the poor”.



God set up a system, from the beginning of blessings and curses. He said, "My people perish from lack of knowledge." God's people, who are poor, sometimes remain poor, but usually get their needs met. The answer to poor people is the knowledge that God blesses people who know his word and follow his ways. Psalm 1.
God promises success for those who do. This does not release the rich from giving, but in fact, makes him who gives more rich, for, "Give and it will be given unto you, good measure, pressed down and running over will men give into your bosom." So, income redistributionists will always have a beef with someone, either the rich, or God, supposing that one man's gain, is another man's loss. That is called the zero-sum game. It is contrary to God, founded upon a belief that God could not bless all people equally. That is untrue. Read the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, but you'll probably have a hard time getting through it, after verse fourteen.

Yours is just another way of saying “if you are poor it is because you have disobeyed God”. This idea that “blessing” constitutes material wealth originated in the 19th century and is repeated to this day. The problem with it is that it ignores several dozen verses that plainly indicate that material wealth is meaningless: lay up your treasures in heaven, give all that you have to the poor, blessed are the poor, the rich man and Lazarus, consider the lilies of the field, the Son of Man has no place to lay His head, etc.

The so-called “income redistributionists” have no “beef” with either the rich or God, but we do have a beef with people who don’t pay their fair share using God to justify selfish behaviour. If the only way to fatten your already fat bank balance is by cutting medical care to the sick, cutting welfare to single mothers, cutting transit subsidies, eliminating rent controls or ending subsidized housing – that isn’t just destructive, it is evil.


Blessing is available to all humanity, but it comes from God, the the knowledge of him, his word and his ways. Even a rich man who doesn't know and follow God is living under a curse. Riches can be a curse. Likewise ignorance of God's ways keeps even his people in a state of lack. It does help the poor to be on the receiving end of charity, but it isn't a solution to poverty. When even a poor person begins to give, "it will be given back to him, good measure, pressed down and running over will men give into his bosom."

There used to be an expression for what you have just said. It is called “pie in the sky”. If is from a line in a song “You will eat when you die”.

You can’t run a society based on the faith belief that if each and every individual in it follows a particular religious creed, then poverty will end – especially as this has never ever been the case. You run a society based on the principle that each and every citizen it deserves as best a chance as possible to improve their lot. This is best done by providing good schools, a minimum wage, affordable, universal healthcare, a safety net in case of unemployment, subsidized housing, affordable day-care, sufficient and cheap rapid transit and the right to bargain collectively


When Israel demanded from Samuel, a king, like other nations, God told Samuel, "They have not rejected you, but Me as their king." He went on to tell Samuel to tell the people that a king would conscript their sons into his army, require taxes to be paid to him, and take their lands and livestock for his use. God was telling the people they should trust him and Samuel, of whom it was said, "No word from his mouth ever fell to the ground." The list of things a king, 'human government,' would do, is clearly to be seen as not as good as trusting God.

I take it then you are equally opposed to paying taxes to support the military, to pay for the war in Iraq, to pay for teachers, police, fire fighters, road maintenance and a host of other programs that taxes pay for. I take it then that you would do away with the office of the President and establish a theocracy of judges passing rulings based on the Torah?

If not, then clearly you recognize that quoting a verse that applies to an ancient people who were demanding to break away from theocratic government and establish a monarchy like the heathen nations around them doesn’t really apply to a 21st century nation-state. And in fact, if you read further into the book, you find that God Himself is appointing Kings over Israel and promising that there would always be a King over the Jews until the Messiah came.

So clearly while God was upset the Hebrews desire to keep up with the Joneses, He didn’t prohibit constitutional government.


None of what you said changes the fact that, especially since the Son of God is not physically present, that what he said still applies. It was not for that moment in time only, but for now also: "The poor you have with you always, (still true) and you can help them anytime you wish." Still true.

You have not refuted my objection. The message of this verse is “keep your priorities straight”. If I tried to justify robbery on the grounds that I was poor, you could quote this verse. If I want my government to do more to tackle poverty in my society, this verse is meaningless.


If God's people would learn this, they would be able to give a lot more to the poor, because they would be able to give less through the government, to do what they should be doing. Much of it is expended in the bureaucracy.

History has shown repeatedly that elected representatives best deal with poverty and inequality at the national level. The oversight is greater and the results easier to measure. More importantly, government programs eliminate the stigma of “charity” and can deliver benefits directly to recipients. Not only that, but such programs as transit subsidies, subsidized day-care, food stamps, etc, are massively expensive and could only be financed by governments. Further, things like rent control, minimum wages and protective labour laws are outside of the control of individual charities.


Instead, it is better to donate to relief organizations of good reputation. It should be spent on the poor, and a lot less of it go to padded pews and choir robes.

If organized religion spent every cent it had on trying to eliminate the inequalities, lack of opportunity, poverty and social problems in just one U.S. inner city, it would go bankrupt in a few years. Charity does a fine job helping those who have been marginalized and have dropped off society’s radar. It does a magnificent job reaching those who can no longer be reached. But to expect it to solve the economic inequalities and ills of a modern nation state is asking too much.

[TyRockwell]

FS33AD,

You really are confused! All the scriptural references you cited, about helping the poor, and not being greedy, and storing up treasure in heaven were still mandated to individuals.

Even after God allowed the people to have kings, he did not require that they set up a confiscatory system to provide for the poor, nor especially to strive to eliminate poverty. "The poor you have with you always," is not a mandate to change that fact.

God does not expect his people, nor their governments to eliminate poverty. That is exactly why they were better off before they demanded a king like other nation-states.

God allows poverty, He allows failure, He is not the source of those things, either. The idea that it should be unthinkable that there is poverty and failure is a humanist idea. It shows that mankind still thinks they can know better and do better than God.

Why do you think that He busted up the Great Society program they had going at the Tower of Babel?

[FirstSunday33ad]

FS33AD,

You really are confused! All the scriptural references you cited, about helping the poor, and not being greedy, and storing up treasure in heaven were still mandated to individuals.

Even after God allowed the people to have kings, he did not require that they set up a confiscatory system to provide for the poor, nor especially to strive to eliminate poverty. "The poor you have with you always," is not a mandate to change that fact.

God does not expect his people, nor their governments to eliminate poverty. That is exactly why they were better off before they demanded a king like other nation-states.

God allows poverty, He allows failure, He is not the source of those things, either. The idea that it should be unthinkable that there is poverty and failure is a humanist idea. It shows that mankind still thinks they can know better and do better than God.

Why do you think that He busted up the Great Society program they had going at the Tower of Babel?


You say, “[God] did not require that they set up a confiscatory system to provide for the poor, nor especially to strive to eliminate poverty”.

Even if we accept that this is true – which I don’t think it is – on what are you basing your conclusion that He therefore prohibits us from attempting to alleviate and eliminate poverty?

You state that the mandates against greed and helping the poor are mandates for individuals not governments. But again, even if that is true (which again I don’t think it is) our government form is a democracy; that is, it is a government collectively chosen by individuals and is expected to act as the majority of individuals choose. In other words, if a government is elected with the mandate to help the poor and tackle poverty, it has been given this mandate by the individuals in that society and is therefore still fulfilling the mandate given by God to individuals.

The only way you could legitimately claim that the government was contravening the mandate of God in helping the poor, would be if it were a dictatorship and was quite literally confiscating property. But this is not what is being discussed here. Taxation is NOT a confiscatory system. ALL societies have taxation; even the most capitalist, free enterprise system has to have tax. As someone once said; tax is the price of a civilized society.

Further, it is clear is that even you don’t support this idea of complete separation of government from the individual in fulfilling God’s word. If you did, you would not expect government to prohibit gay marriage, work to eliminate abortion, expect it to censor pornographic images or try to reinstate prayer or the 10 Commandments in schools. You would tell government to basically mind its own business and not to concern itself with these issues.

If you truly believed in a separation of government from the individual, you would be an anarchist advocating a faith-based community form of government much like exists in Amish communities or Israeli Kibbutz’s. But you don’t support that idea. You want government to govern your society and to work to eliminate those issues that you see as problems and encourage those solutions that you believe to be the best. And you vote to accomplish this goal.

You state God allows poverty and failure. Yes He does. He also allows murder, rape, abortion, homosexuality, adultery, theft and a host of other crimes, sins and abominations that people do to each other. But He also holds us responsible for what we do. There may always be poor people. There may always be suffering. But by no stretch of the imagination, does that mean we are somehow exempt from being expected to help the poor or alleviate the suffering. If this can best be done by giving government the mandate to implement programs and to structure the tax rate in such a way that the greatest amount of good is done for the greatest number of people; then that is not only the smartest thing to do, it is also the best way of fulfilling God’s command.

[TyRockwell]

You are wrong to say that our form of government is democracy. We have a republic, limited democracy under the rule of law. That follows God's pattern. Right and wrong are not to be defined as what the majority of the people want, especially when they try to go against what God calls right or wrong.

God's purpose in allowing human government was to restrain evil and punish evildoers. That is why laws rule over majorities. Men's tendency is toward license. That is what leads to anarchy, everyone doing what is right in his own eyes. Laws that are not based upon God's basic revelations of morality lead to the decline of civilized societies.

Your claim that government actions to help the poor are an extension of the individual's responsibility to help the poor is an error. Nowhere does the bible mandate civil governments eliminate poverty. In fact, the individual is not required to eliminate poverty. We have laws that protect people from unequal treatment under the law. We have laws that require fairness, and equal treatment under law. THAT is what we pay taxes for, along with defense and law enforcement.

The liberals always want to arrange for an equality of OUTCOMES. God's way, and the way of a republic, is to protect equal OPPORTUNITY. This allows for the equal possibilities of success or failure.

When democracies vote to provide an equality of outcomes, there is a disinsentive to excel and succeed. Why should one try to offer a better product, and achieve a better success if his earnings are to be taken away to provide for an equal result for those who are less successful?
This is why we have capitalism. Jesus said, "By and sell, until I come." Likewise, why should a person strive to achieve success if he can sit back, or put in less work, and his result be 'equalized' with others who have worked harder? He might consequently assume he does not need to put in EQUAL EFFORT, to achieve equal results.

Wherever you have socialised economies, you have less insentive to achieve, you therefore have less a quality of healthcare, and regulated prices that make for long waits for services. People in socialistict economies wait months longer for medical services, of a lower quality than those in capitalistic, achievement driven economies. Therefore you have people from Canada, The U.K. and the European Union coming to the U.S. for medical services, where they can pay, on the open market, and receive better healthcare, sooner.

[joel]

socialism usually gives way to totalitarianism. by it's very nature, socialism consolidates power.
Tosh. Socialism no more gives way to totalitarianism than capitalism. Rather it is usually the reply of the right that brings in totalitarianism as a means of suppressing socialism.
Harldly. People, by nature create, own, and trade. A totalitarian government is required to prevent such activity. Therefore you cannot have socialism without totalitarianism. On the other hand, totalitarianism means the death of capitalism. In order to sustain capitalism, we must prevent statism.
Thus socialism entails totalitarianism. Capitalism entails protection of individual rights.
How has the "right" suppressed socialism by totalitarianism?



If Tom needs to scale down a bit so Fred can rise to a better standard of housing, I think that is fair.Which is fine, but that's not where you stop. You want to go in and use physical force (or the threat of it) against Tom to take his property from him. That is stealing. It is possible that Tom is not sinning. But even if he were, you must not use evil to fight evil.



Stealing is taking what belongs to another for your own use and enjoyment without their permission.
No, stealing is taking what belongs to another without their permission. Period. Regardless of motive, it is still stealing! It is unjust.



we do have a beef with people who don’t pay their fair share using God to justify selfish behaviour.That's fine. But that is between them and God. Don't fight evil with evil.



You run a society based on the principle that each and every citizen it deserves as best a chance as possible to improve their lot...Amen! Protect individual rights.



...This is best done by providing good schools, a minimum wage, affordable, universal healthcare, a safety net in case of unemployment, subsidized housing, affordable day-care, sufficient and cheap rapid transit and the right to bargain collectivelyOh, never mind, I agreed with you too soon. Your solution is to violate individual rights.



Taxation is NOT a confiscatory system.
Umm? confiscate: "to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate for public use."
taxation is confiscation. It is confiscating property upon threat of physical penalty.



Further, it is clear is that even you don’t support this idea of complete separation of government from the individual in fulfilling God’s word. If you did, you would not expect government to prohibit gay marriage, work to eliminate abortion, expect it to censor pornographic images or try to reinstate prayer or the 10 Commandments in schools. You would tell government to basically mind its own business and not to concern itself with these issues.- The government does not currently prohibit gay marriage. Nor should the government have anything to do with marriage one way or the other.
- The government should protect individual rights - including those of the pre-born.
- The government should not censor anything.
- There should be a wall of separation between school and state.