Bar Stool Economics
This is saying the same thing I said a few weeks ago about a demotivated work force. Punish the rich and you may not get your beer at all.
Source Unknown (if you wrote it, claim it).
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?]- Belated Twelve Days of Calvinism
- Odds and Ends, 3.26.09
- New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
- Wall Street Journal: Digitizing Ancient Manuscripts
- A Primer on the Christian Understanding of Capital Punishment
Print This Post








AndyC on 28 Oct 2008 at 6:35 pm #
I do not know who wrote this, but I must say one thing.
I have a 30 year career in finance, including a stint as the CFO of a NYSE traded company. I am a CPA.
This is the clearest explanation of our tax system I have ever seen!
OK, I said three or four things, but I still hold to it.
Kenneth on 28 Oct 2008 at 9:29 pm #
I think I read this in a column by William F Buckley once.
Fluency » Economics and Taxes on 28 Oct 2008 at 9:35 pm #
[...] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/bar-stool-economics/ [...]
Jason on 28 Oct 2008 at 10:27 pm #
I’m going to steal this.
JohnFOM on 29 Oct 2008 at 3:19 am #
Yeah, I saw this one over on Contend Earnestly on the 22nd. No attribution there either.
Scott Ferguson on 29 Oct 2008 at 5:50 am #
Just after we get a thoughtful post on faith and commitment we get this?
It ain’t beer guys. It is clean water, safe food, safe neighborhoods, health care, etc… In your story. the first guy’s kid died from a infectious disease, the next two had their mother’s killed in robberies and that rich guy never made his fortune because 6 of the other nine never received enough of an education to become decent workers.
You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good.
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 6:46 am #
Scott
“You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good”
I couldn’t agree more with you my friend.
Actually I think this is the seconf time this week that Michael has potsed an unharacteristicaly and skewds right-leaning slant on events. He even confessed as much in his earlier post regarding those terrible and demonic youth of today!
Why, in Michael’s thread was every word dedicated to maintaining the fairness and justice for the rich, but hardle anything uttered about fairness and justice for the poor. Hardly a balanced pierce was it?
I also had a sense Michael, as I was listening tou your comments that I was almost hearing the voice of one of the workers who came early to the vineyard yet at the end of the day got paid
exactly the same as the guy who just turned up for the last hour.
Yes you could come back to me and say that that passage is about salvation ie I have been a Christian and worked served you all my life but this guy has led a debauched life but has had deathbed conversion and crept into heaven alongside me. But the point is, it would appear that the God of justice and fairnes s mauy have a different take on justice and fairness than we do.
I have to confess that I do love election time. the same old hot potatoes generally rear their head and most of them have very m uch a self-immersed, self preservation slant to them. I actually quite enjoy it but I have to be careful of the more mischievous side of me can easily take over!
It sounds as though you need to stock the fridge with beer before next Tuesday Michael, you may be in need of it by the looks of this thread! (Although I am still one of the dew insisting that aNoBAMA VICTORY Iis by no means a certaintly. Anyhoe, if Palin and m
McCain win (.. a terrible mental image just flashed up then!) you can always use the beer to cheer your success. If Obama wins it will come in useful for a drowning of sorrows night!
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 6:54 am #
“You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good”
I couldn’t agree more with you my friend.
Actually I think this is the second time this week that Michael has posted an unharacteristicaly overly skewed right-leaning slant on events. He even confessed as much in his earlier post regarding those terrible and demonic youth of today!
Why, in Michael’s thread was every word dedicated to maintaining the fairness and justice for the rich, but hardly anything uttered about fairness and justice for the poor. Hardly a balanced piece was it?
I also had a sense Michael, as I was listening to your comments that I was almost hearing the voice of one of the workers who came early to the vineyard yet at the end of the day got paid
exactly the same as the guy who just turned up for the last hour.
Yes you could come back to me and say that that passage is about salvation ie I have been a Christian and served you all my life but this guy has led a debauched life but has undergone a highly convenient deathbed conversion and crept into heaven alongside me. But the point is, it would appear that the God of justice and fairness mauy have a different take on justice and fairness than we do. He may deven deem things fair that we think are unfair. (“My ways are not your ways” etc).
I have to confess that I do love election time. The same old hot potatoes generally rear their head yet againand most of them have very much a self-immersed, self preservation slant to them. I actually quite enjoy it, but I have to be careful that the more mischievous side of me doesn’t quickly take over!
It sounds as though you need to stock the fridge with beer before next Tuesday Michael, you may be in need of it by the looks of this thread! (Although I am still one of the few people insisting that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion. After the Florida debacle of eight years ago, quirt frankly nothing would surprise me.
Anyhow, if your wildest dreams come true an Palin and McCain win (a terrible mental image just flashed up then….but I’m all right!!) you can always use the beer to cheer your success. If Obama wins it will come in more than useful for a drowning of sorrows session!
Del on 29 Oct 2008 at 6:59 am #
Sorry Scott, despite what Michael Moore might say about health care in Cuba, the safest water, food, neighborhoods, and best health care are only found in countries with a free market that allows individuals to create and keep wealth. I work for a man who is very wealthy, and I’m very pleased to make him that way. If he wasn’t motivated to make money I wouldn’t have a job. There is no way to sustain an economy that doesn’t involve a system that plays to our “selfish” desire to increase our wealth. Sadly in this country we have let socialism creep in and now our water, food, and neighborhoods are less safe. If we were to allow the free market to reign in health care we might even see the return of doctors making house calls!
Markd on 29 Oct 2008 at 7:53 am #
Since I am a teacher I tell my kids a similar story involving grades. The A students are never all that thrilled at the prospect of the F and D students riding on their coat-tails to the “middle-class”. I also live in one of the most welfare dependant areas of the US (per capita). Politically it is of some small relief that most folks here cling to “religion and guns”.
Vladimir on 29 Oct 2008 at 8:43 am #
Michael,
Very good. I’m going to copy it too!
Someone recently remarked that it doesn’t matter if you give the poor a hand out, the money will soon return into the hands of those who can manage it.
Vladimir
carol on 29 Oct 2008 at 9:16 am #
Aren’t you leaving out the tax breaks the rich are able to take? or is this scenario after tax breaks?
Pete S on 29 Oct 2008 at 9:46 am #
In a email with this in it it was attributed to
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 10:13 am #
“Just after we get a thoughtful post on faith and commitment we get this?
You can argue about degrees of progressiveness in the tax system but this kind of simplistic, Rush Limbaugh thinking does one any good.”
Scott
I couldn’t agree more…well said!
Am I the only one who was struck by the fact that this article was thoroughly imbalanced and impartial?
It was interesting that line upon line was written about a fair breaK for the rich but nothing on a fair break for all, least of all the poor.
I have to say Michael that I find your theoogical postings to be fabulously intelligent, articulate, cogent and deeply thought provoking, I just don’t know what happens to you when you wade into the political/economic arena. The intlligence and balance just simply goes walkabouts! This is the second time in as many days tis has happened!
When I was listening to your comments I could hear the complaining, (some may argue whining) voice of one of the workers in the vineyard complaining because he had worked all day and only been paid the same wage as the guy who worked for just an hour! Soetimes God’s standards of fairness and nmustice are not the same as ours. And Jesus certainly didn’t turn round and say to him”Why, of course, you are so right.
I guess we can excuse it because it is election time so it wouldn’tt be the same if we didn’t have the same old hot potatoes rearing their ugly head, normally all based around self interest and a grasping mentality rather than a giving generous mindset, but if yoiu could please ratchet up the quality of the comment to ensure that it gives a more balanced and fair perspective when dealing with economic and political issues it would be greatly appeciated.
That is not to say you can’t put your own political lant on it, of course you can, but a fair assessment of all the arguments would be valuable so that people can make up their own minds on these issues.
Del on 29 Oct 2008 at 10:33 am #
britphil,
Let’s look at this from the perspective of something Jesus would condemn: theft. When the government uses force to take away money from one group who earned it and give it to another group who didn’t we euphemistically call that “redistribution”. If I were to take your money by force and give it to someone else we would call it theft. What’s the difference? That’s why redistribution of wealth a.k.a. socialism rubs most Christians the wrong way. I doesn’t matter how needy someone is. They don’t have a right to someone else’s money. Charity (voluntary redistribution of wealth) is the appropriate Christian response.
Jesus rebuked the all day worker in the vineyard who complained about not getting paid more than the one hour worker because the all day worker had no right to more of his boss’ money than what he agreed to work for.
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 10:43 am #
“That’s why redistribution of wealth a.k.a. socialism rubs most Christians the wro
ng way.
Del..let’s get this right shall we? Redistribution f wealth or socilaism rubs most AMERICAN cHRISTIANS UP THE WRONG WAY.
tHE WORLD IS FUL;L OF cHRITAINS WHO ARE NOT aMERICAN AND WHO THERFORE DO NOT SHARE YOUR VIEW.
P;ease state the argument correctly and widden your vision a bit?
And as for socialism not being the answer I take it you were a firm advocate of no interventionary action act all being taken to erescue the A,mericaN ECONONMY RTECENTLY, sURELY TYOUR ATTIUITUDE WOULD ENABLEUS TO HAVE WVAed goodbye to the American ecoinnomy as it slid down the pan but you have been stra\ngely silent and subdued on this issue. I evn guess it will be acvoided in any reply It normally is vbecause it makes capitalists squitm a bit
“It doesn’t matter how needy someone is.” I cannot believe this staemenrt has fallen from tghe lips of a Christian. That is not what Jesusa taUGHT IN THE pARABLE OF THE gOOD sAMRITAN. tHE GOSPEL WRITINGS ARE CHI K FULL OF EXAMPLES WHERE IT DID MARTTER TO jESYUS JUST HOW NEEDY PEOPE WEREM EVEN IT IT CLEARLY DOES NOT MTEER AN IOTA TO YOU.
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 10:49 am #
Sorry for the previous message. The edits are playing up today and I did not use to use all those caputals, apart from the phrase “AMERICAN” Christians which was used deliberately for emphasis.
“That’s why redistribution of wealth a.k.a. socialism rubs most Christians the wrong way.
Del..let’s get this right shall we? Redistribution of wealth or socilaism rubs most AMERICAN Christians up the wrong way. You show an alarming lack ignorance of the the belief systems of many, if not all,
non-American Christians. Scandinavian Christians for example would take almost the completely opposite stance on the issue! Non-American Christianity is alive and well Del!
Please state the argument correctly and widen your vision a touch!
And as for socialism not being the answer I take it you were a firm advocate of no interventionary action whatsoeverv being taken to rescue the ailing American economy recently. I take it you advocated waving goodbye to the American economy as it merrily slid down the pan recently.
You have been strangely silent and evasive on this issue. I even guess it will be avoided in any reply. It has so far when it has been raised because it makes rampant capitalists squirm a bit
“It doesn’t matter how needy someone is.” I cannot believe this statement has fallen from the lips of a Christian.! That is not what Jesus taught in the Parable of the Good Samritan! Needy people did and still do matter to Jesus if they don’t matter an iota to yourself.
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 11:13 am #
“It doesn’t matter how needy someone is.”
Michael
Can I just cross reference if I may with the “Nominal Christians” post. The reason there are so many nominal Christiansis because they look at so many evangelcial Christians who proudly declare that it does not matter how needy someone is..,..and then they read the gospels!
Why should they want to commit themselves more deeply to this type of Christianity?
It is what probably caused Mahatma Gandhi to proclaim,”the person of Jesus Christ I love and adore…it’s just the Christians I can’t stand!
Del on 29 Oct 2008 at 11:16 am #
Hi Britphil,
Let’s take this point by point:
Britphil: “Redistribution f wealth or socilaism rubs most AMERICAN cHRISTIANS UP THE WRONG WAY. tHE WORLD IS FUL;L OF cHRITAINS WHO ARE NOT aMERICAN AND WHO THERFORE DO NOT SHARE YOUR VIEW.”
Del: Being in the minority doesn’t make my view wrong.
Britphil: “And as for socialism not being the answer I take it you were a firm advocate of no interventionary action act all being taken to erescue the A,mericaN ECONONMY RTECENTLY,”
Del: No intervention would have been necessary if the government hadn’t been in the business of playing favorites, i.e. the powerful (politicians) giving money to their cronies (the rich). There is such a thing as socialism for the rich. You’re witnessing it in the bailout.
Britphil: “sURELY TYOUR ATTIUITUDE WOULD ENABLEUS TO HAVE WVAed goodbye to the American ecoinnomy as it slid down the pan but you have been stra\ngely silent and subdued on this issue. I evn guess it will be acvoided in any reply It normally is vbecause it makes capitalists squitm a bit.”
Del: The current economy is built on paper riches. It needs to be allowed to crash and burn. Going forth the economy needs to be built on sound money. It won’t be though. It will be built on the fiat dollar like it is now.
Britphil: “That is not what Jesusa taUGHT IN THE pARABLE OF THE gOOD sAMRITAN.”
Del: The Good Samaritan performed an act of charity (voluntary redistribution of wealth). No government forced him to give his money away.
Britphil: “tHE GOSPEL WRITINGS ARE CHI K FULL OF EXAMPLES WHERE IT DID MARTTER TO jESYUS JUST HOW NEEDY PEOPE WEREM EVEN IT IT CLEARLY DOES NOT MTEER AN IOTA TO YOU.”
Del: Whether the needy matter to me doesn’t change that socialism is theft.
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 11:26 am #
Del
Thank you for your answer. You are one of the firts people to have actually had the courage to reply re the recent American economic crisis.
“Being in the minority doesn’t make my view wrong.”
No you are absolutely right, it doesn’t but by logical inference it doesn’t make you right either. And us non-Amercian Christoains are equally as entitled to our opinions as anyone else.
“the powerful (politicians) giving money to their cronies (the rich). There is such a thing as socialism for the rich. You’re witnessing it in the bailout.”
Oh come on Del. Does the name Hallibuton mean anything to you. Governements of all colours, not least capitalist Republicans have pandereing and rewarding their cronies since time began! Why does it suddenly become so conveneiently wrong all of a sudden. So we mustswallow uncritically the view that only the socialist rich are evil, and the capitalist rich are as morally pure as the driven snow? Please give me a bit of a break.
I do agree with you. The rich who beneriffted on the backs of the poor from the mortgage crisis should have been left to suffer. I have no probnlem with that. But I guess they will not be all voting Demcorat come next Tuesday.
It needs to be allowed to crash and burn.
If you push me, and up until now nobody else has, I would have been an advocate of seeing the American and other world economies totally crash and burn. Thos poor, needy stockbrokers across the worldwith their heads in their hands really made my heart bleed! It would have been a severe and much needed wake up call, spiritually, moraly, politicallty and economically for the entire Western world, not least for Western Christianity in general which needs it far more than most!
Ramoant catialsm which rapes the poor of their resources for a quick nuck is equally as much theft as casocialism. Do you not agree, Why is it I guess there are mitigating circumstances., There usually are!
Del on 29 Oct 2008 at 11:38 am #
Hi Britphil,
Britphil: “Oh come on Del. Does the name Hallibuton mean anything to you. Governements of all colours, not least capitalist Republicans have pandereing and rewarding their cronies since time began! Why does it suddenly become so conveneiently wrong all of a sudden.”
We may actually agree on something! I don’t differentiate between government powerful being republican or democrat, socialist or capitalist. If they use power (they all do) and redistribute stolen (taxed) wealth to others, rich or poor, then I’m against it.
Michael, look what you’ve started. Let’s get back to religion. It’s less controversial.
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 11:49 am #
Del
Thank you for your helpful and irenic comments.
I think I have now got clear in my own mind what I would like to sy.
All I would argue for is a more balanced and broader perspective than just the tax issue. There are faier trade issues ie giving third world producers a just price fo their product aND NOT JUST THE CHEAPEST WTO maximise profit which is also theft. Some arue that property is theft bit I do not advocates uch. It is not just tax wwhich is theft. It is rthe same plea I hAve made regarding issues re LEGISLATION HICH PRporotects the whol of life from before the cradle to the grave.
What Christianity needs is a broad perspective, not a narrow blinkered one which focusedsa and majors one or two issues at the expensae of others.
One final plea…please do not rush tot he assumption that if you are not a capitalist ypo must be a card carrying out and out socialst. There are varying degrees on both sides and some of us do argue for a synnergy/middle gtound approach, though it normally falls on deaf ears!
..and Michael..it will not surprise you to learn that I would like more of these debates. W
britphil on 29 Oct 2008 at 11:51 am #
Oh not again I hear you cry! Can this man not send a message and edit it before hitting the send button!?
Del
Thank you for your helpful and irenic comments.
I think I have now got clear in my own mind what I would like to sy.
All I would argue for is a more balanced and broader perspective than just the tax issue. There are fair trade issues ie giving third world producers a just price for their product and not just to maximise profit which is also theft. Some arue that property itself is theft, wghich I do not advocate seeing as I own my own house!. It is not just tax alone which is theft.
It is the same plea I have made regarding issues re legislation to prtoect the whole of lfe, from before the cradle to the grave.
What Christianity needs is a broader perspective I feel , not a narrow blinkered one which advocates focusing and majoring one or two issues at the expense of all the others.
One final plea…please do not rush to t he assumption that if you are not a capitalist yo must be a card carrying, out and out socialst. That is simply untru e.There are varying degrees on both sides and some of us do argue for a synnergy/middle ground approach, though it normally falls on deaf ears!
..and Michael..it will not surprise you to learn that I would like more of these debates. Given my earlier comment I would just prefer it if they were a slightly less one-sided, unless of course that is your intent, to stir up a healthy debate!
Del on 29 Oct 2008 at 12:11 pm #
Good discussion, Britphil. Religious discussion can wait!
Here’s a good way to work out property, ownership and thus fairness in our minds. It begins with my “self”.
I own myself: I don’t own anyone else (slavery). No group of people can own me (communism).
I own any material object I possess: I can find things not possessed by another. Someone can gift me something they possess (and so she no longer possesses it). I cannot take from someone else something I don’t own (theft). Nor can I ask someone to take something from another and give it to me (government). I can trade something I possess with someone else (a free market). Notice that all the ‘good’ actions are voluntary. The ‘bad’ actions require the use of force. This is all founded on the gospel, love your neighbor, do unto others, and it’s negative corallary, do not do to others that which you wouldn’t want done to you. There is no mention that government must make us do good things. Loving others can’t be forced.
Wm Tanksley on 29 Oct 2008 at 12:54 pm #
Of course this is true! But it doesn’t detract at all from the truth of what Patton posted: that tax cuts can’t be judged based on who gets the largest amount of money.
Frankly, I’m seriously concerned by the fact that the American tax debate is entirely dominated by discussion of absolute amounts of money; people talk about a “1 trillion dollar tax cut”, when what’s actually being changed is a tax rate. The actual revenue change is unknown in a dynamic economy; if the tax rate cut keeps a business or two afloat, the revenues from that company and its workers will be greater, not lesser.
The correct way to talk about taxation changes is tax policy, not “costs”. Taxation should have a broad base, be reasonably simple to comply with, hard to avoid, cheaply and consistently enforced, and stable across time; without those attributes it’s hard to make long-term business decisions, and even personal decisions like how to save for retirement.
Patton’s argument doesn’t really address this problem; he addresses a related problem, that people oppose tax cuts because they allow the rich to keep more money than they allow the poor to keep. But as Patton proved, this is an inevitable consequence of a progressive taxation system, and paying attention to that argument means that tax rates can never be reduced at all (which could not possibly be universally valid!). As I suggest above, counting the absolute amount of money a tax change will cost or save is not an effective way to establish tax policy.
-Wm
Jason on 29 Oct 2008 at 1:25 pm #
Any economic system run by human beings will inevitably allow normal human greed and malice to manifest itself.
Those in a position to abuse their power will do so. It does not matter whether the system is pure capitalist, pure socialist, or a mix of the two. The error of socialism however is that it ties those who can abuse economic power to those who can abuse political power. Granted, pseudo-capitalist systems (like America’s) where the economic powers can pull the political strings is equally dangerous.
It is the error of the secularists to believe that putting a man in a new suit will make him a new man. The Christian way has always been to change the man, then worry about his suit.
C Michael Patton on 29 Oct 2008 at 2:22 pm #
Del, I thought your comments summed things up well. It is simply not the government’s job to distribute weath. Even if, somehow, one can justify such a method of government as an acceptable moral option, it is not pragmatic toward advancement.
I liken the economic plans of socialism and redistribution as economic anti-depressants. Sure, it will stablize certian aspects, but the consequenses level any type of stimulous and motivation. Yes, there is always risk in freedom, but the cost of its alternative is too high.
C Michael Patton on 29 Oct 2008 at 2:25 pm #
“The error of socialism however is that it ties those who can abuse economic power to those who can abuse political power.”
Good word.
Vladimir on 29 Oct 2008 at 3:08 pm #
It really is a matter of stewardship and the sovreignty of God.
You can ask any CPA. a family making $25,000.00 can and often does live better than one which makes $65,000.00.
Why pay Wal Mart prices for the same items at others stores for considerably less?
Vladimir
Chuck Warnock on 29 Oct 2008 at 3:36 pm #
Where to start? The false logic of this post (I’m glad you didn’t write this, Michael) is overwhelming. I assume these guys represent percentages of the population, with the primary point being that 10% pays 59% of the taxes in this country. According to Nationmaster.com, the top 30% (guys 10, 9,
pay 65.1%. So, that throws the whole illustration way off.
Plus, the idea that the richest will take their money and go elsewhere is absurd. Where? A progressive tax system is one that takes care of the weakest members of society. That is both our privilege and responsibility. Tax dollars pave streets in poor neighborhoods as well as rich. Tax dollars build hospitals for poor patients as well as the rich. Travel to a developing country like Mexico or China as I have and you will see the results of a system that does not care for all its citizens. It is incumbent on those of us who have a comfortable living to see that all our citizens are cared for.
Now if this sounds like a socialist idea, or even a communist idea, remember the words of Jesus — “Inasmuch as you did it unto one of the least of these you did it unto me.” Plus, to those who did not care for the least of these, Jesus indicates he never knew them. So, let’s drop the classist economics and recognize that Kingdom economics compels us to care for, in a variety of ways, those who need help most. Thanks.
Del on 29 Oct 2008 at 4:17 pm #
Chuck,
I agree. Taking care of the poor IS a moral responsibility. However, if the government takes from me to help the poor I’m no long a free moral agent. Christian charity must come voluntarily from the heart.
American streets are paved in this country because there is an abundance of wealth for the government to glom onto, not because we have a good government. Countries like Mexico and China are in worse shape because their governments are even more parasitical than ours.
No classism here. Only a free and open market will create enough wealth for us to voluntarily and from the heart, care for the poor. Again, Jesus admonishes us to care for the poor. Let’s do it! But not with other people’s money.
Wm Tanksley on 29 Oct 2008 at 4:21 pm #
That doesn’t mean that the tax issue should be ignored!
Price isn’t decided by the purchaser; it’s set by the market. “Fair trade prices” or “just prices” necessarily involve limiting the number of people who are permitted to sell, so that supply can be artificially restricted. Usually the method used to allow that is that the “fair trade” cartel charges farmers a substantial fee to register them, plus imposes standards that most can’t meet. The lucky winners then get to sell to the people who are convinced that “fair trade” is a good thing, and the losers get to sell to anyone else (unless one or both government declares that non-fair-traders aren’t allowed to work).
Being ignorant of economics can’t make you merciful. It only means that your best attempts at mercy will amount to cruelty.
-Wm
Vladimir on 29 Oct 2008 at 4:22 pm #
Chuck,
I think the point is that the rich (individuals as well as corporations) make jobs/careers possible for the rest of us. The tax issue is a slap at Obama’s illogic (no logic?).
Want to make $70.00 per hr; $500 per hr? Halliburton or Ford or whoever can make it possible – nay rather, a reality.
Vladimir
Saint and Sinner on 29 Oct 2008 at 5:32 pm #
Every time a (Western European) socialist tells a capitalist that he’s just being greedy because he doesn’t buy into wealth redistribution, a true Commie/Anarchist can simply walk up to the socialist, tap him on the shoulder, and tell him that he hasn’t taken that principle far enough.
Really. Where does it end?
Jimmy on 29 Oct 2008 at 6:40 pm #
Ok. I didn’t read all of the comments (wow!), but I think someone already said that they were surprised to find such a simplistic and clearly right-leaning post on this blog. I would agree.
It leaves out the fact that those on the middle and lowest economic levels can’t afford even basic “luxuries” like health care. Or that they often work hard and stressful jobs that bring success and extravagant lifestyles for the wealthiest 1 or 2–who live in luxury rather than sharing the success equally with those who bring them the luxury. Also, in reality the 10 men wouldn’t even be sitting at the bar together. The wealthiest 1 or 2 would have their own place of service. And instead of beer we would be talking about means of survival for some.
It also leaves out the reality that in the current US tax/spend system, corporate welfare is 3 times as much as the amount spent on low-income welfare: $167 billion to $51.7 billion. And for those “four” who pay and do nothing, they are limited to a 5 year period that this can happen and a limit on how much they can receive–not to mention that they are required (unless for health reasons) to work or do job training for a minimum of 30 hours a week. In contrast there are no limits in corporate welfare in time or money for those in the top tier.
Given the figures above, each American pays an average of $400 a year for low-income welfare, but spends $1400 a year on corporate welfare.
We already “spread the wealth”. I for one am not for spreading the wealth in such a way that gives more money to people who do very little actual work and already make millions and billions when some people can’t afford to live and eat, often working hard for on $6.75-$20 hour.
The other issue is that someone mentioned if Jesus would see taking money from the rich and giving to the poor as “stealing”. Whoever said that has not paid much attention to the Scriptures. What about the tithe that went to the poor who had no inheritance? Or where the mother of Jesus says God has “lifted up the needy, but sent the rich away poor”. Or if that’s too controversial, what about “God desires equality, this is the meaning of the Scripture ‘he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.’” Part of the expectation of the Messianic age (of the world to come) was and is that there will be material and social equality. Why would Christians want to experience that forever but not desire to join in it today?
Lisa R on 29 Oct 2008 at 10:33 pm #
You know, I think its funny how we will jump on the bandwagon against wealth redistribution and even classifying contributing assistance to society’s indigent and disabled folks as stealing. But let the financial markets find itself in need of some government assistance, and we’re singing another tune. Contributing to the needs of society’s most vulnerable and neediest is just as costly as contributing to keep financial markets alive and just as practical. In fact, the U.S. Department of HUD only shelled out a mere $1.4 billion last year on homeless programs compared to… how much is going to cost to bail out Wall Street?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the engines of capitalism as much as anyone here and will defend the need to keep its economic engines running. But facilitating the release of capital is nothing if we are not simultaneously willing to facilitate production into society of folks who may need a little hand up in doing so.
C Michael Patton on 29 Oct 2008 at 10:58 pm #
Lisa, I don’t think any one is in favor of neglecting those who are in need and providing assistance to the degree that the government can sustain and still promote some true version of capitalism. The issue of wealth redistribution has much deeper effects on the psyche of the nation and the workforce that drives it. It is a fine line. As I have said before, the primary job of the government is to protect the wagon, not drive it. Wealth redistribution puts the government in the driver’s seat.
Big picture, however, is that wealth redistribution among the rich cannot even claim any type of moral superiority, even if that was a better way to go. What I mean by this is that the poorest American is much wealthier than the richest in some countries. Or better, our lower class is better off than other’s upper class. If we truly want to distribute our wealth, why do it here? Why not take the taxes and give them to others who are really in need. Truly, there are not too many in America who can claim to be among the poor that we will always have with us. That is why people are swimming oceans to get here.
The government just needs to stay out of our business as often as possible. That is the key. Yes, they can and will step in from time to time, but we cannot make the exception the rule. Once we accept that we have moved to socialism. If that is where everyone wants to end up, this is fine. It is a democracy. But people need to be educated in these things so that they don’t follow in the senseless passions of the masses just because gas is so high or because we lost a few trillion dollars in the stock market. I just don’t think people understand how good we really have it.
Mary B. on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:24 am #
“The government just needs to stay out of our business as often as possible. ”
This is a wonderful theory, but I tend to think it’s applied inconsistently by many people. If you truly believed that, then you wouldn’t have much to say when people wanted the right to abortions, or to marry someone of the same sex. Those people have just as much right to government non-intervention as rich people.
Now, you can say this is a moral issue and therefore separate from the economic issue, and it is. But under my set of beliefs, it’s MORE immoral to deny homosexuals the right to see their life partners in the hospital as it is to tax certain people a little more in order to have the money to secure the future of our country.
As for abortion, a true believer in government non-intervention would let those who don’t believe abortion should be illegal (something like 40-50% of the country, according to a poll I saw a while back) have the right to get abortions.
I suppose from my point of view, this looks like a case of “keep the government off me, but look out for your atheist butt”.
And, you know, to me, the moral thing to do is to PAY my taxes happily and without complaint, knowing that the money I give up is going toward the common good. It benefits everyone to have good education, good infrastructure, and a good social safety net that doesn’t depend on the whim of people who may or may not care to give money at that time. I’m happy to give my share in order to ensure that everyone’s kids have access to medical care, not just the ones in my city that I could personally contribute to.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 6:53 am #
Mary B
We haven’t corresponded before but I think you are a bit of a new P&P star in the making!
“This is a wonderful theory, but I tend to think it’s applied inconsistently by many people. If you truly believed that, then you wouldn’t have much to say when people wanted the right to abortions, or to marry someone of the same sex. Those people have just as much right to government non-intervention as rich people.”
Absolutely. This argument that is being put forward is so ill thought through and loaded wuith inconsistencies which have highlighted really well.
Yep..funny how government intevention becomes attractive when it suits our tastes or serves our purposes. It is so ironic that those who rage against “bleeding heart liberlas” are thare completely blind tio the fact that they are the most liberall people of all, a label which would horrifty many of them if they thought it was going to be attached to themselves.
“And, you know, to me, the moral thing to do is to PAY my taxes happily and without complaint, knowing that the money I give up is going toward the common good. It benefits everyone to have good education, good infrastructure, and a good social safety net that doesn’t depend on the whim of people who may or may not care to give money at that time. I’m happy to give my share in order to ensure that everyone’s kids have access to medical care, not just the ones in my city that I could personally contribute to.
Can I just reach across the Atlantic Mary and give you a huge warm embrace flor this last comment
Micahel you have rebuked us onm many on accasion with hte following remark. Can you please just deal with it! God requires you to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and I for one would be happy to [ay a more tax if it meant a better infrastructuire, health system, etc for society as a whole. Can you not think a bit more communally ratherthan just merely indivdualistically?
But people need to be educated in these things so that they don’t follow in the senseless passions of the masses just because gas is so high or because we lost a few trillion dollars in the stock market. I just don’t think people understand how good we really have it.
I’m sorry Michael, but you can be a touch patronising at times “the senseless opassions of the masses” sounds like the musings iof a academic who is looking down from afar at the great unwashed! Each of the opinions of those “senseless masses” (I take it you know them all well) is equallt as valid as yours and they are entitled to express it, especially at the ballot box next week. I live in an urban working class setting, and Im I can assure you that the lessons they have learned in the “school of life” are probably worth far more than what is taught in any univwersity or seminary. I would even go far as to state that many of these senseless people would give most if not all of the students at any theological college/seminary a really good run for their money!
Onme other question I might ask if I may. Why is it that so many Republicans arwe acting and behacving as if the Sovereignty of God is going to dreastically diminsh overnight next Tuesd
For those who claim themselves to be card carrying Calvinists why has your God suddenly become so small resulting in all this negative, personal scaremongering against Obama. Are you not required to submit to his authority just as muc gh as you do to George W Bushes or Ronald Reagan, or is he goinvg to dish out some form of dispensation clause permitting non- submission due to mitigating c circumstances?
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 7:01 am #
Here is a properly edited version of my response to Mary/Michael!
Mary B
We haven’t corresponded before but I think you are a bit of a new P&P star in the making!
“This is a wonderful theory, but I tend to think it’s applied inconsistently by many people. If you truly believed that, then you wouldn’t have much to say when people wanted the right to abortions, or to marry someone of the same sex. Those people have just as much right to government non-intervention as rich people.”
Absolutely. This argument that is being put forward here is so ill thought through and loaded with inconsistencies which you have highlighted really well.
Yep..funny how government intevention becomes attractive when it suits our tastes or serves our purposes. It is so ironic that those who rage against “bleeding heart liberlas” are completely blind to the fact that they are the most raging liberal people of all. This would horrify many of them if they thought it was going to be attached to themselves.
“And, you know, to me, the moral thing to do is to PAY my taxes happily and without complaint, knowing that the money I give up is going toward the common good. It benefits everyone to have good education, good infrastructure, and a good social safety net that doesn’t depend on the whim of people who may or may not care to give money at that time. I’m happy to give my share in order to ensure that everyone’s kids have access to medical care, not just the ones in my city that I could personally contribute to.
Can I just reach across the and give you a huge warm transatlantic embrace flor this last comment Mary.
Michael you have quite justifiably, on many an occasion rebuked us with the simple and stark remark “deal with it!”. Can you please just deal with this situation! God requires you to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and I know this concept may seem like anathema, but I for for one would be happy to pay more tax if it meant a better infrastructure, health and education system, etc for society as a whole. Can you not think a bit more communally rather than just merely indivdualistically?
“But people need to be educated in these things so that they don’t follow in the senseless passions of the masses just because gas is so high or because we lost a few trillion dollars in the stock market. I just don’t think people understand how good we really have it.”
I’m sorry Michael, but you can be a touch patronising at times “the senseless opassions of the masses” sounds like the musings iof a academic who is looking down from afar at the great unwashed! Each of the opinions of those “senseless masses” (I know it is a mere turn of phrase, but I take it you know them all well) is equally as valid and important as yours and they are entitled to express it, especially at the ballot box next week.
I live in an urban working class setting, and I can assure you that the lessons they have learned in the “school of life” are probably worth far more than what is taught in any university or seminary. I would even go far as to state that many of these “senseless people” would give most if not all of the students at any theological college/seminary a really good run for their money and would probably run rings round many of them!
One other question I might ask if I may. Why is it that so many Republicans are acting and behaving all of a sudden in accordance with a new found “The Reducible Sovereignty of God” principle or doctrine. Is the sovereignty of God going to drastically diminish overnight next Tuesday?
For those who claim themselves to be card carrying Calvinists why has your God suddenly become so small resulting in all this negative, personal scaremongering against Obama. Are you not required to submit to his authority just as much as you have done for George W Bushs or Ronald Reagan, or is the Lord suddenly about to dish out some form of dispensation clause permitting non- submission due to mitigating circumstances?
Just wondering!?
Vladimir on 30 Oct 2008 at 9:17 am #
britphil,
“Just wondering!?”
Democracy is not monarchy and Obama is not a king or prince or anointed. Neither were the Bolsheviks or Communists either come to think of it.
Vladimir
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 9:49 am #
Hi Vladimir
I am completely perplexed as to where you got the idea that I was implying democracy was monarchy from, and neither do I think that Obama is a king, prince or anointed one of any sort whatsoever! You are making way too many assumptions here.
But the principle must surely be that if he is elected, God has permitted that to happen, whether you like it or not, and that ALL Amercians are called to come under the authority of the elected government. I don’t believe that the new President, whoever it may be, is anointed but they well be appointed which is a totally differentr concept. Also I well remeber the almost Messianic fervour and euphoria when Tony Blair was first elected here in the UK, yet he turned out to be a real disappointment in the end.
You also cleverly avoided providing a reply as to why many Americans, including yourself if you don;t mind me saying, are reacting with an attitude bording on panic and paranoia if you hold to the view that God is sovereign. Unless of course, you don’t!
Am I right in thinkg that you might have difficulty submitting to, or let’s put it another way, coming under the authority of an Obama-led administration? Just asking.
mom of 4 on 30 Oct 2008 at 10:06 am #
All of you who lean toward socialism…you are trying to impose on people the things that God himself would not. He doesn’t require us to hand over our money for salvation. Sure, we tithe and give offerings out of obedience and love…in fact when we give, it should be “a get to attitude” not a “have to” attitude. It is by grace we have been saved through faith in Christ. Why is it that we have such little faith in our brothers and sisters in Christ to provide for those that need our help? God doesn’t. Think about what a faceless government’s help does for a needy individual. Do you think it inspires people to “pay it forward” or make changes in their life for the better? I don’t. It makes people become more dependent and feel entitled. There is no reason to work harder or make changes because they become comfortable. (on a side note, the rich are not an endless supply. As more people start feeling comfortable and think it not necessary to work harder, there are more people to provide for and eventually the “rich” will be tapped out. Less “rich” people will exist because there will be few who will want to work hard enough to attain it.) Now think about how we react when a person with a face helps us out in hardship. We are inspired, we want to return the favor, we are thankful, we work a little harder to get out of our ordeal. This is why non-government programs for those that are in need are a better way in helping people not to mention it gives us the opportunity to share Christ. I don’t know if any of you come from modest backgrounds. I do and many in my family still live modestly. So what I say is from my own experience. Regardless of how this election turns out….God is in control “for He removes kings and establishes kings. The result is part of His plan.
Saint and Sinner on 30 Oct 2008 at 10:10 am #
“Am I right in thinkg that you might have difficulty submitting to, or let’s put it another way, coming under the authority of an Obama-led administration? Just asking.”
We will have to obey the government under Comrade “Che” Obama, but in America, we have the Constitutional right to criticize any government official. This Constitutional right is over and above the authority of the sitting President.
So, while I will not slander my leader (”You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people”), I will still criticize “Chairman Mao” Obama’s policies.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 10:22 am #
Saint and Sinner.
Thank you Saint for being prepared to do what Valdimir either couldn’t or wouldn’t do and actually answer the question.
I am actually with you all the way on this one. Criticise way to your heart’s content my friend! I know I do, so long as you are prepared to obey his authority and so long I am prepared to submit to the authority of the elected leaders here in the UK. I somehow do not think that all American Christians share your willingness though!
Have no fear, I will be feeling exactly the same as you are in a couple of years time, as it is almost a dead certainty that a right wing Conservative (If I was going to go down the cheap Marxist/Che/route I could add Fascist, but I won’t!) government will be elected here at next election as sure as eggs are eggs!
I have to say though I do find all this “Che/Chairman Mao/Obama’s a Marxist”stuff way, way too simplistic.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 10:31 am #
“Regardless of how this election turns out….God is in control “for He removes kings and establishes kings. The result is part of His plan.”
Hi Mom of four.
Whatever you do, don’t let Vladimir see this..
“Democracy is not monarchy and Obama is not a king or prince or anointed. ”
…he will have a complete duck egg! Despite not being a socialist you have attributed royal qualities to Obama that I would not ever dare to do!
And by the way, yes..I am from a very “ordinary” poor background in one of the poorer towns/urban communities of the UK, and no, neither me or my family have, thankfully, had to rely on state benefits, though I firmly believe that there many who, sadly, do.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 10:33 am #
“So, while I will not slander my leader (”You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people”), I will still criticize “Chairman Mao” Obama’s policies.”
By the way Saint, could not calling Obama derogatively “Chairman Mao” constitute slander?
Lisa R on 30 Oct 2008 at 11:29 am #
Michael, I am absolutely in favor minimal restrictions involving the free flow of capital. I think a healthy economy depends on it. So no, socialism is not the answer. But I do believe government intervention is necessary to regulate this flow. But I also believe we cannot sacrifice those at the lowest socio-economic stations in the process.
Nothing perturbs me more than comments like Mom of 4 made regarding people who receive government subsidies as unwilling or unmotivated to work. I think people that make these kinds of comments should go into a local homeless shelter to see the “face”. More often than not, it is the woman who had to flee from the guy who was beating the crap out of her, or the man than cannot kick his addiction and loses it all, or the family living on minimum wage (yes working!)and some life interruption forces homelessness. Some folks are really trying but need a hand in getting there. And while there are a tremendous flow of private dollars and inkind services, including churches, to provide much needed housing and assistance to these folks, it also takes the hand of government to ensure for a healthy society through assisting the poor to improve their station as well as facilitating the capital of the rich for a healthy economy.
Vladimir on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:05 pm #
britphil,
“Thank you Saint for being prepared to do what Valdimir either couldn’t or wouldn’t do and actually answer the question.”
britphil, contrary to your belief/assumption, I have other things to do than sit at this computer and reply to your quips tit for tat.
Of course there is emotional outrage on my part at least that such a sort as Obama would even have the audacity to run, but even beyond this, the utter ignorance and wishful thinking of the naive populus who things this individual is a bona fide wizard whose political and economic ideas are the salvific gift of redemption for this country’s (even the world’s) avarousness and lack of intelligent foresight.
I guess, quite frankly, **most** have forgotten how to count and pinch pennies (kopecks)! Or maybe is it something like “Where your treasure is….”
AIG and the like need a food stamp card too! Our comrade Lehman has fallen – boo hoo! (tongue in cheek)
As far as the sovereignty of God is concerned, the anxiety/anticipation of the outcome of an event (whatever it might be) and those *humans* concerned therein does not exhibit a lack of belief or faith in the over arching and all pervasive dynamic activity of God in each and every individual’s life.
Nor does a vehement protest on the part of those who may not so choose to be contented if Obama should have been ordained by God from before the foundation of the world to be the next President of the USA evidence a dissatisfaction against God but rather and only one of disapproval of another bloody Mary, or James or Charles or Leonid or Joseph, et al.
Vladimir
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:17 pm #
Lisa
Thank you so much for your comment.
This is the kind of thing I was hoping would have been evidence in Michale’s original posting. A very articulate and compassionate standpoint and brilliantly argued.
Although I have not posted to say so, I too was disappointed at Momof4’s somewhat dismissive remarks.
I think people that make these kinds of comments should go into a local homeless shelter to see the “face”.
“And while there are a tremendous flow of private dollars and inkind services, including churches, to provide much needed housing and assistance to these folks, it also takes the hand of government to ensure for a healthy society through assisting the poor to improve their station as well as facilitating the capital of the rich for a healthy economy.”
Sister, all I know is that you are going to make a great Christian leader one day when your training is complete. and you will be an asset to the Christian church. Thank you for helping to restore a bit of balance and perspective to the discussion!
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:22 pm #
Of course there is emotional outrage on my part at least that such a sort as Obama would even have the audacity to run..
Hi Vladimir..please could you unpack a bit more what you exactly mean by the phrase “such a sort as Obama”. I don’t think he is a “bona fide wizard” at all, I have never even implied any such thing, but are you seriously implying that the desperation of the McCain/Palin appraoch is indicative of a higher degree of intelligence? Surely not! You appear to be very quiet about their almost complete lack of credibility and intelligence to assume the leadership of the USA.
“Of course there is emotional outrage on my part”
I sense Vladimir that God is by no means as outraged as you are by Obama’s decision to run… but I am sure you will probably let me know otherwise! Also, is such anger healthy. You do appear to display a fair amount of it in your comments, and not all of it appears to me to be of the righteous sort either.
Wm Tanksley on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:51 pm #
How does this analogy apply? It seems incredibly weak.
Money IS regulated, just as abortion and marriage is. There are things you can and can’t do with it. You can’t claim that a paper you printed in your basement is legal tender (especially if it almost looks like a US banknote), and you can’t demand that the IRS respect an inheritance tax exemption based on a marriage that’s polygamous.
None of this justifies taking people’s money just because they have more of it than someone else.
Morality touches everything, including economics.
Absolutely. Why should that be in hospital policies at all? It doesn’t seem to have anything fundamental to do with marriage.
Ah, but it IS immoral to act foolishly, even with good intentions. Redistributing money for the sake of fairness is indulging in an expensive and counterproductive fantasy.
Taxes are not immoral, of course. Neither is borrowing. But both can be done wisely or foolishly.
Again, your bringing this into the discussion is simply the result of a weak analogy. It certainly is debatable at what level government should be able to tax, and how much government should be able to regulate medicine, and what actions should be considered criminal, and so on… But it’s not a part of this debate.
You have a lot of faith.
Agreed. I’m also glad to fund the schools. I’m not so happy about the teacher’s unions and school administrations, though.
Everyone has access to medical care. The problem with our current system is finding out who pays the bills, and how much they are. (Have you ever tried to find how much a medical procedure will cost before receiving it? Good luck!) With a single-payer system we’ll know who pays, but we’ll lose all track of how much the bills are.
Derek on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:59 pm #
the real problem with the illustration in this post is that no rich people drink beer with poor people.
mom of 4 on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:02 pm #
By the way britphil and Lisa R, I am a product of a family situation where my mother did have the crap beaten out of her regularly, she had to escape when I was 8, and my bio father threatened to kill me, my siblings, my mom and grandparents. I lived in low income house most of my adolescent life. We did receive government assistance because my biodad did not pay child care. I am very aware of the circumstances. So don’t make assumptions that people who have the view I have haven’t seen these circumstances faces to face. I think people who have not experienced this stuff themselves get into do gooder mode and want to do the hand out part but are not so interested in encouraging and lifting people out. I can not tell you how many different families I grew up around that were in bondage to government assistance and couldn’t get out. They lacked motivation and many of them spent a lot of time in activities that did not help their situation. I did however learn early that I did not want this to be my future. I studied hard, chose my friends wisely, asked God for guidance and wisdom. All of which has got me where I am today. I am all for a safety net to get people on their feet. I am not for keeping them there.
Derek on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:16 pm #
seriously though, i make 700 billion dollars a year and i am tired of having to give it to all the poor people in america(always, of course, due to their slothfulness and irresonsibility). i really need all 700 billion so that i can pay off all the credit card debt i have because i have been trying to single-handedly turn around our economic crisis by buying everything i want (or think i might want, or could ever see myself wanting, or dont really even want but am convinced will let people know i am rich). so, how am i supposed to help our economy when i have to stop buying all this stuff because i have to give some of it to the poor? we shouldnt even let the poor guy into the bar unless he can pay just as much for beer as i can. maybe then that would be a proper motivation for him to get a job. i am sure he could get a job at mcdonalds. so what if it only pays minimum wage. so what if they only let him work 39 hours a week so that they dont have to give him benefits. so what if that means he will still be under the poverty line. so what if he has 3 kids. i have to pay childcare to my 6 ex-wives. the poor guy can work his way up just like i did. sure, my parents were both doctors and they helped me to get through all my schooling and always paid for the things i needed. sure my family has a history of being wealthy, but i earned every penny i have. and i am sure that if i were in the poor guy’s shoes i would be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps and take over the world.
so, thanks for this great post to justify what my thoughts have been all along.
Wm Tanksley on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:28 pm #
I agree. I do find this very deeply disturbing; it’s an enormous injustice to all involved. It’s also very difficult to get a grip on, since there’s no formal “corporate welfare” program to target (the costs may be much more than you estimate). And there’s other expenses; for example, the huge tariffs on imported sugar intended to keep American sugar producers healthy by keeping sugar prices up.
I’d love to see some corporate welfare reform. Actually, I’d love to see it all vanish, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon.
The problem is that as long as government has the power to redistribute wealth, the people with money and power will have the incentive to convince government how “best” to do the distribution. The more power we give the government to redistribute, the more it’ll be used in unexpected and nasty ways.
You’re confusing taxes with welfare. You can pay zero taxes for as long as you “want” (I’d rather not, of course — that implies low income). Welfare was brilliantly reformed by Clinton and the Republican congress to be just as you described.
At the time, Obama was against that reform, although I’ve been unable to find out on what grounds (perhaps they were legitimate). Now, his “tax cuts” perform an end-run around the welfare reform by having the IRS write checks to help the less well off instead of using the welfare system.
And his “tax cuts” will last only 2 years (or so he said repeatedly during his infomercial). I have every reason to believe him there. Care to guess whether he set a time limit on his tax increases or spending increases?
I’m annoyed by his almost total lack of anything resembling actual policy in his tax policy. The cuts he’s proposed are almost all effectless; even the job creation credit (which contains the beginning of a policy) expires in two years, making it a nonentity. To have any effect, a tax policy needs to be predictable so that companies change their behaviors in the desired ways.
(And the job creation credit wouldn’t make a good long-term policy — it rewards the wrong thing.)
Wm Tanksley on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:41 pm #
I’ll need to see what you’re talking about — I don’t recognize many of your references.
Citation? Could you be talking about the offering to support the tribe of Levi, who were explicitly said to have no inheritance? That wasn’t intended to support the poor, but rather the entire priestly system.
There was another organized offering to support the poor; every three years the “firstfruit offering” was to be given to the “Levite, stranger, orphan, and widow”.
Citation? I can’t even find that on Google, much less in the Bible.
Citation? Many of the parables seem to state quite otherwise.
-Wm
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 2:14 pm #
Hmm William
I would have appreciated it if you had also offered up a similar line by line critique/analysis of Michael’s ,at times pretty unbalanced original posting as you have of Mary’s reply.
Just seems a bit of a skewed reply to me. After all Michael’s analogy didn’t have any Scriptural references to back it up at all if I am not mistaken.
Saint and Sinner on 30 Oct 2008 at 2:53 pm #
“By the way Saint, could not calling Obama derogatively “Chairman Mao” constitute slander?”
No, that kind of talk has been a normal part of American discourse since the Revolution.
It’s hyperbolic talk that associates him with an extreme form of socio-economic policy. It’s intended more as sarcasm. Do I actually believe that he will be just like Lenin? No. Do I believe that he’ll support FARC in South America? No, but he is sympathetic to Marxist entities.
Wm Tanksley on 30 Oct 2008 at 3:12 pm #
M’s analogy didn’t claim any scriptural backing; there is no clarification needed. The post I made asking for Scriptural citations was in response to someone who made claims about the content of Scripture.
I don’t see how a scriptural critique of Michael’s analogy is possible; his analogy is mathematical/statistical, not theological. He’s not claiming that it would be evil to act in that way; he’s claiming that it’s ineffective. If a scriptural critique of that claim exists, it’s in the book of Proverbs, and I don’t know what it would be.
-Wm
Vladimir on 30 Oct 2008 at 3:57 pm #
britphil,
Anger is not only healthy, but it is encouraged in Scripture! Of course there is a caveat – sin not.
You wrote speaking of Palin and McCain:
“You appear to be very quiet about their almost complete lack of credibility and intelligence to assume the leadership of the USA.”
Assuming for the sake of argument that your premise is correct, then this country and even the world is in for a lot of hurt if that sort of something or another is elected.
BTW, britphil, have you split with the conservatives or are you one of the abandoned/left behind/forsaken in the Anglican communion?
Vladimir
Vladimir on 30 Oct 2008 at 4:05 pm #
Greetings mom of four,
You commented:
“…They lacked motivation and many of them spent a lot of time in activities that did not help their situation…”
In America there is a subculture of vagabonds who wander from homeless shelter to homeless shelter, staying and living off the local safety nets, drinking and sexing it up when it suits them and working only sparingly. They sit in public libraries and read the paper, read books and get on the internet and play games.
Some are just sorry, but others get a check. I think Jesus referred to these as “the least of these my brethren.”
This is a subculture life style. It is a chronic reality of American society.
Vladimir
minnowspeaks on 31 Oct 2008 at 4:08 am #
Came across an interesting statistic when I was doing some research for my own blog post. Christians contribute 370 billion dollars annually to Christian charities including their own fellowships. It sounds like an awful lot of money when it is said that way. Too bad it only equals 2 percent of the 16 trillion dollars of wealth they accumulate annually.
Jason on 31 Oct 2008 at 5:27 am #
Christians accumulate 16 trillion dollars of wealth annually?
Quick, someone tell George W before he goes out of office. We’ll give him a gift that’ll pay off America’s debt.
Seriously Minnow, $16,000,000,000,000 is a lot of money, approximately $80,000 for every man woman and child in America. I doubt that the Church has anything approaching that amount of income. The numbers just don’t add up.
Christians make up about a third of the world’s population ~2,000,000,000. If each was accumulating $8,000 a year for the kingdom of heaven it might be possible but since the majority live in countries where they would seldom see that much money in a lifetime that’s not very likely.
mom of 4 on 31 Oct 2008 at 7:04 am #
Vladimir, hmmm don’t you think it is our current hand out system that is creating this “subculture” you describe. Just think, if we continue to make more people dependent on their “government” to take care of them; evenually, it is the culture no longer a subculture. Is that really helpful? Are we really “helping people”? Shouldn’t we be sharing Christ with people? Showing them how to depend on Him? Isn’t that where are focus should be? If we did this with as many people as we know in our life, don’t you believe the Holy Spirit will spur them on to contribute freely? Or inspire this subculture of people to contribute to society rather than suck it dry.
I see a LOT of envy in these posts. It is really scary to read on a Christian blog. Why are you so concerned about how everyone else is contributing? Are you doing your part? Or are you only willing to do your part if others are made to, so it “seems” fair. I think you all forget that we live in a fallen world.
By the way, just because the government takes from the rich to supposedly give to the poor…doesn’t mean that they will actually get it. Governments are run by fallen men. Have you read the Bible?
Jesus said to Peter about John’s future “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you You follow Me!” John 21:22
Maybe instead of worrying about what the rich or anyone else is doing and how government should mandate the things we think are “fair”. We should do what are Lord asks, follow Him.
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 7:49 am #
“even the world is in for a lot of hurt if that sort of something or another is elected.
Vladimir
Again, I ask you to clarify, but I guess I won’t get an answer just another insult, what do you actualklmean by the term “that sort of something or other”. Yet again I am sure you will evade a response and just hurl another insult instead. Is that a Christliek attitude to adopt?
“Some are just sorry, but others get a check. I think Jesus referred to these as “the least of these my brethren.”
“Nothing perturbs me more than comments like Mom of 4 made regarding people who receive government subsidies as unwilling or unmotivated to work. I think people that make these kinds of comments should go into a local homeless shelter to see the “face”. More often than not, it is the woman who had to flee from the guy who was beating the crap out of her, or the man than cannot kick his addiction and loses it all, or the family living on minimum wage (yes working!)and some life interruption forces homelessness. Some folks are really trying but need a hand in getting there.”
“Some are just sorry, but others get a check. I think Jesus referred to these as “the least of these my brethren.” I take it this is an attempt at irony, because youi didn’t quote Jesus’comment in full. ie what you do for these the least of my brethren you do for me…but I am guess you are going to inform us that with some biozarre interrptretation that when he used the word “brethern” he meant “the already saved” Becaiuse if he did mean us to do things for the least of outr bretheren as if for him, whay is there such a lack of desire to be obedient to his request..and indeed to castigate them rather than serve them and meet their needs.
Vladimir . I think you should have a chat with Lisa Robinson who is currently studying under Michael Patton’s tutelage I believe, because I would rather listen to someone who talks from personal experience/career experience rather than someone whi is so removed from what actually goes on.
“BTW, britphil, have you split with the conservatives or are you one of the abandoned/left behind/forsaken in the Anglican communion?”
I am more than happy to answer your questionbut first your premise needs to be corrected. It is not the first tim that I have had to ask people to remove their American-tuinted spectacles but the phenomenon you describe, at present is a purely American/African phenomenon. As yiou are presumabl aware my name is Britphil. Can I just take some time to explain to you the situation as it currently is in the UK where the spirtiual home of the Anglican communion remains, for the time being perrhaps.
At present, no Anglican church within the entirety of the UK, including those who consider themselves staunch conservative evangelicals have split fronm the Anglican Communion. They all remain withuin it The only Anglican churches whihc have split from the Anglican Commuinion are some of the American conservative (and get it right, ultra-high non-conservative evangelical Anglo Cathol
ics too) are either in USA/Canada or Africa.
So, to answer your question, no I am not “left behind” and neither as yet are the many conservative evangelcicals within the USA. And for what it is worth, although I fully understand why GAFCON has arisen, I think it is as much about personal egos as it is about doing the will of God. There are some opportunists who see the chance to make a real name for themselvesa s well as God.
Again just to maske sure your information is correct there are churches that come under the jurisdiction of 3 non-diocesan “flying bishops”, but they are mostly people who Are ultra Anglo Catholic and will not accept the ministrations of a Dioceasan Bishop who is in favour of the ordination of women. There a few conservative evangelical churches who have joined them, but hey, guess what, the majority of evangelical churches, including most staunchly conservative evangelical churches have chosen to remain within the Anglican Communion under the authorit of their Diocesan Bishop.
And let me also state this. I have already made a good friend on the Theological website who is a member of a church which has joined the secessionists in Amrica and is under the jurisdiction of an Ugandan Archbishop. I really enjoy dialoguing with him.
And I also have many friends who are members of churches who have currently (though this may change) chosen to remain within the Anglican communion as it stands. There are also highly respected evangelical theologians such as NT Wright the Bishop of Durham who has publicly gone on record criticising the secessionist for their actions.
I hope this has helped answer your question Vladimir.
Phil
And if you would care to read more carefully I have time and tiome again reiterated my dsilike of theantics of Katharine Jefferts Schori and her supportwers. I think she is the wrong person for the job by a mile and long for the day when she is quicklly replaced.
So rest assured I am not abandoned and I’m sure it will disappoint you to know there are many churches of my persuasuion which are healthy and growing. But then, that whatb happens when decisions are amdde to engage with people rather than witrhdraw from them.
mom of 4 on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:21 am #
Vladimir, As I reread my post it looks like I am addressing you about the envy part….this is just a general observation of previous posts, not about yours…I apologize. Heck I may have misunderstood what you were getting at. If so I apologize. I am new to this blog thing. Regards, Mom of 4
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:33 am #
Here is the finalised edited version of my previous comment.
“even the world is in for a lot of hurt if that sort of something or another is elected.
Vladimir
Again, I ask you to clarify, but I guess I won’t get an answer just another insult, what do you actually mean by the term “that sort of something or other”. Yet again I am sure you will evade a response and just hurl another insult instead. Is that a Christlike attitude to adopt?
“Some are just sorry, but others get a check. I think Jesus referred to these as “the least of these my brethren.”
“Nothing perturbs me more than comments like Mom of 4 made regarding people who receive government subsidies as unwilling or unmotivated to work. I think people that make these kinds of comments should go into a local homeless shelter to see the “face”. More often than not, it is the woman who had to flee from the guy who was beating the crap out of her, or the man that cannot kick his addiction and loses it all, or the family living on minimum wage (yes working!)and some life interruption forces homelessness. Some folks are really trying but need a hand in getting there.”
Vladimir . I suggest you have a chat with Lisa Robinson who is currently studying under Michael Patton’s tutelage I believe, because I would rather listen to someone who talks from personal /career experience rather than someone who is so removed from what actually goes on.
“Some are just sorry, but others get a check. I think Jesus referred to these as “the least of these my brethren.”
I take it this is an attempt at comic irony, because you didn’t quote Jesus’comment in full. ie “what you do for these the least of my brethren… you do for me!”…but I am guess you are going to provide us with some us that with some bizarre interpretation that when he used the word “brethren” he meant “the already saved” Because if he did mean us to do things for the least of our brethren, saved or not, as if it was for him personally, why then is there such an almost total lack of desire to be obedient to his request..and indeed an inclination to castigate trhese brethren rather than serve them and meet their needs.
“BTW, britphil, have you split with the conservatives or are you one of the abandoned/left behind/forsaken in the Anglican communion?”
I am more than happy to answer your question but first please may I correct your premise. It is not the first time that I have had to ask people to remove their American-tinted spectacles but the woe-is-me abandoned/desolate/forsaken phenomenon you so accurately describe describe, at present is a purely American/African phenomenon. Can I just take some time to explain to you the situation as it currently is in the UK where the spiritual home of the Anglican communion remains, for the time being perhaps.
At present, no Anglican church within the entirety of the UK, including those who consider themselves staunch conservative evangelicals have split fronm the Anglican Communion. They all remain within it without exception. The only Anglican churches which have split from the Anglican Commuinion are some of the American conservative (and let’s get it right, ultra-high NON-CONSERVATIVE evangelical Anglo Catholics too) are either in USA/Canada or Africa.
So, to answer your question, no I do not feel “left behind” or abandoned at all and neither as yet are the many conservative evangelicals within the UK. And for what it is worth, although I fully understand why GAFCON has arisen, I think it is as much about personal egos as it is about doing the will of God. There are some opportunists around I feel who see the chance to make a real name for themselves as well as God, as is always the case and the temptation for those who hold high office, especially in the priestly sense, a position which can easily feed the ego if allowed to do so. There are some BIG personalities involved on both sides of the ECUSA/GAFCON fence which really makes me just a tad concern regarding the motivation behind some of the actions.
Again just to make sure your information is accurate and up-to date, within the UK there are churches that come under the jurisdiction of 3 non-diocesan “flying bishops”, but they are mostly people who are ultra Anglo Catholic and will not accept the ministrations of a Diocesan Bishop who is in favour of the ordination of women. There a few conservative evangelical churches who have joined them, but hey, guess what, the majority of evangelical churches, including most staunchly conservative evangelical churches have chosen to remain within the Anglican Communion under the authority of their Diocesan Bishop.
And let me also state this. I have already made a good friend on the Theological website who is a member of a church which has joined the secessionists in America and is under the jurisdiction of an Ugandan Archbishop. I really enjoy dialoguing with him. He has asked me to pray for this Ugandan Archbishop, and I will.
And I also have many friends who are members of churches who have currently (though this may change) chosen to remain within the Anglican communion as it stands. There are also highly respected evangelical theologians such as NT Wright the Bishop of Durham who has publicly gone on record criticising the secessionist for their actions.
I intend to remain firm friends with people on both sides of the schism as that is what I believe God requires of me. Perhaps you might let me know if I should think and act differently.
And if you would care to read my posts more carefully I have, on a number of occasions, time and time again reiterated my dsilike of the antics of Katharine Jefferts Schori and her supporters. This is an example of a person , and (here both men and women within the Anglican communion) who should never be allowed within a million miles of a Bishop’s or Archbishop’s mitre! Sadly they are, sometimes all too frequently!
I hope this has proved a sufficient answer to your question Vladimir.
Phil
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:39 am #
Here is the finalised edited version of my previous comment.
“even the world is in for a lot of hurt if that sort of something or another is elected.
Vladimir
Again, I ask you to clarify what you mean by the phrase “that sort of something or another”, but I guess I won’t get an answer just another insult. What DO you actually mean by the term “that sort of something or other”. Yet again I am sure you will evade a response and just hurl another insult instead. Is that a Christlike attitude to adopt, I ask?
““Nothing perturbs me more than comments like Mom of 4 made regarding people who receive government subsidies as unwilling or unmotivated to work. I think people that make these kinds of comments should go into a local homeless shelter to see the “face”. More often than not, it is the woman who had to flee from the guy who was beating the crap out of her, or the man that cannot kick his addiction and loses it all, or the family living on minimum wage (yes working!)and some life interruption forces homelessness. Some folks are really trying but need a hand in getting there.”
Vladimir . I suggest you have a chat with Lisa Robinson who is currently studying under Michael Patton’s tutelage I believe, because I would rather listen to someone who talks from personal /career experience rather than someone who is so removed from what actually goes on.
“Some are just sorry, but others get a check. I think Jesus referred to these as “the least of these my brethren.”
I take it this is an attempt at comic irony, because you didn’t quote Jesus’comment in full. ie “what you do for these the least of my brethren… you do for me!”…but I am guess you are going to provide us with some us that with some bizarre interpretation that when he used the word “brethren” he meant “the already saved” Because if he did mean us to do things for the least of our brethren, saved or not, as if it was for him personally, why then is there such an almost total lack of desire to be obedient to his request..and indeed an inclination to castigate trhese brethren rather than serve them and meet their needs.
“BTW, britphil, have you split with the conservatives or are you one of the abandoned/left behind/forsaken in the Anglican communion?”
I am more than happy to answer your question but first please may I correct the premise on which you base your question. It is not the first time that I have had to ask people to remove their American-tinted spectacles but the woe-is-me abandoned/desolate/forsaken phenomenon you so accurately describe, at present is a purely American/African phenomenon. Can I just take some time to explain to you the situation as it currently is in the UK where the spiritual home of the Anglican communion remains, for the time being at least.
At present, no Anglican church within the entirety of the UK, including those who consider themselves staunch conservative evangelicals have split from the Anglican Communion. They all remain within it without exception. The only Anglican churches which have split from the Anglican Communion are some of the American conservative (and let’s get it right, ultra-high NON-CONSERVATIVE evangelical Anglo Catholics too) who are located either in USA/Canada or Africa.
So, to answer your question, no I do not feel “left behind” or abandoned at all and neither as yet are the many conservative evangelicals within the UK. And for what it is worth, although I fully understand why GAFCON has arisen, I think it is as much about personal egos as it is about doing the will of God. There are some opportunists around I feel who see the chance to make a real name for themselves as well as God, as is always the case and the temptation for those who hold high office, especially in the priestly sense, a position which can easily feed the ego if allowed to do so. There are some BIG personalities involved on both sides of the ECUSA/GAFCON fence which really makes me just a tad suspicious regarding the true motivation behind some of their actions.
Again just to make sure your information is accurate and up-to date, within the UK there are churches that come under the jurisdiction of 3 non-diocesan “flying bishops”, but they are mostly people who are ultra Anglo Catholic and will not accept the ministrations of a Diocesan Bishop who is in favour of the ordination of women. There a few conservative evangelical churches who have joined them, but hey, guess what, wonder of wonders, the majority of evangelical churches, including most staunchly conservative evangelical churches have chosen to remain within the Anglican Communion under the authority of their Diocesan Bishop.
And let me also state this. I have already made a good friend on the Theological website who is a member of a church which has joined the secessionists in America and is under the jurisdiction of an Ugandan Archbishop. I really enjoy dialoguing with him. He has asked me to pray for this Ugandan Archbishop, and I will, and gladly!
And I also have many friends who are members of churches who have currently (though this may change) chosen to remain within the Anglican communion as it stands at present. There are also highly respected evangelical theologians such as NT Wright the Bishop of Durham who has publicly gone on record criticising the secessionist for their actions.
I intend to remain firm friends with people on both sides of the schism as that is what I believe God requires of me. Perhaps you might let me know if I should think and act differently.
And if you would care to read my posts just a bit more carefully I have, on a number of occasions, time and time again reiterated my dsilike of the antics of Katharine Jefferts Schori and her supporters. This is an example of a person , and (there are both men and women within the Anglican communion) who should never be allowed within a million miles of a Bishop’s or Archbishop’s mitre! Sadly they are… sometimes all too frequently!
I hope this has proved a sufficient answer to your question Vladimir.
Phil
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 9:09 am #
“I would have appreciated it if you had also offered up a similar line by line critique/analysis of Michael’s
Hi William
All I was asking for really was a similar critique of Michael’s assessment. Irrespective of whether there was a Scriptural basis to it, or whether it was pure analogy, there was plenty in Michaels’ original post which was open to serious question, but which you did not appear willing to scrutinise as closely as you did Mary’s comment.
I am sometimes just a tad concerned when the opionions and thoughs of us “ordinary folk” are subjected to heavy and rigourous scrutiny, whereas the musings/thoughts of learned academics/theologians attend to be afforded tooo much in the way of deference merely because they are learned academic theologians.
Given the dreadful legacy that some theologians (though by no means all) have left to the church, close scrutiny of their thought/teachings beliefs should be advocated, and not just by their peers in the academic world.
Wm Tanksley on 31 Oct 2008 at 9:15 am #
I think we have to agree that Christians are giving an amount in offerings which is surprisingly small.
However, there’s a broader scope and reason for this. People like the ones posting here teach their fellow Christians that taxation is charity, and people are being taxed at rates upward of 10 percent. If you’re already “giving” a tithe, why should you expect more?
Can you defend this double-mindedness? Specifically, how can you condemn Christians for being uncharitable, and at the same time defend high tax rates as being charitable?
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 9:19 am #
Could I ask a favour, or, more accurately make a hopefully constructive suggestion.
When it comes to posting threads of a political/economic nature onto P&P, as part of her ongoing theological training perhaps you could share these postings with Lisa Robinson. (sorry if you don’t want to do this Lisa..but it is just an idea!).
I sense that she is a bit of a star in the making (not meaning to make her head swell, just what I think) and it would be really good to have someone posting from the slightly more rigid right of center viewpoint, but tempering it with someone posting from a softer right of centre perspective.
I think the end result would make great reading and be a catalyst for some great discussion on all sides of the fence.
Just a suggestion….
Wm Tanksley on 31 Oct 2008 at 9:30 am #
I really don’t get what you’re asking for. I can’t critique a correct post. Michael is correct. Mary was incorrect. I think you’re trying to be fair, but this is not an issue of fairness; it’s an issue of correctness.
The closest I can come to a critique of Michael’s post is to point out that some parts of it don’t hold on a national level; people (and corporations) are less likely to leave a nation than they are to leave a state or city, because laws are very different in other nations. Thus the ending where the rich people simply leave is exaggerated (although it may happen in California, it won’t happen to the US as a whole) — but the exaggeration points to a basic truth that can’t fit into the analogy, that wealth will tend to filter into places where it’s protected and filter out of places where it’s not.
Michael’s post, economically speaking, is a teaching tool; it’s not a serious Gedankenexperiment, since no actual group would behave in such a pathological manner — until, of course, it gets large enough to no longer fit into a simplified model. The pathologies we’re dealing with here are sociological, not economic.
Vladimir on 31 Oct 2008 at 9:44 am #
britphil,
Objection 1. Re: The Poor. I have 11 years of experience dealing with, interacting with, etc just such sort of people I mentioned in my previous post. You have none.
Objection 2. Learn to write, proof read and spell and please don’t post your third and fourth redactions. I will only read the first – IF…
Objection 3. …you do more research and become more versed in the issues that you address. Your aires are not helpful and your dialogue centers on self. Please leave off the ad hominem. I can not be perturbed.
You remind me of one who wishes to dictate method and procedure in NT text critical issues without a thorough knowledge of Greek.
Objection 4 Re: The Split. No, britphil, it is as cut and dry as I have stated. N.T. Wright may have his opinion, but I just wish he could get the basis for justification right!
Objection 5. Re: Your impudence. You know nothing about me, yet you assume and presume to your heart’s content. Why don’t you ask a question; stop skewing my presumed answer in an ill light and listen and learn?
I gather from your posts that you are thirty years or so my inferior. I also gather that you have no professional, accredited theological training, but are simply a product of your social setting – the apostate (according to the Bible) Anglican communion.
I have two post graduate degrees and almost a doctorate. I also have walked with the Lord for over 35 years. Do you think I am only a country bumpkin and a knot on a log? You don’t want to know.
Vladimir
C Michael Patton on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:46 am #
Brit,
I did not mean to say that the “senseless passions” of the people means that they vote Democrat or are liberal. What I meant is that people, in general, (which often includes me!) who will make their decisions based upon the “what’s happening now” policies, not looking to the big picture of what it means broadly speaking. We all forget the big picture when things seem to get tight, but it does not mean that our policies are wrong. Same thing with war. When people begin to die, we all forget, due to our senseless passions, why we went to war in the first place. We just want to stop the bleeding no matter what the cost.
Concerning sovereignty of God: I don’t think I have expressed any panic. Making an argument for what you believe to be right even if wrong is inevitable (not saying this is the case) does not deny God’s control. If Obama were to win and if he were able to enact his policies, I will only see God’s will in such and will rejoice in what he has planned. My passions don’t turn on this issue as much as you may think, but we do have the responsibility to put forward our voice.
Obama wins, God is sovereign. McCain wins, God is sovereign. Either way, no one can hold back his hand and take a moral, political, social, or economic high ground. He owns it all and I look forward with great joy and expectation at his movements.
C Michael Patton on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:47 am #
Sorry to the rest to whom I did not respond. I just don’t have time to read ALL of this great stuff.
Thank you all for keeping things civil and placing Christ before all things, including politics. Our worldview must be throughly converted.
Vladimir on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:48 am #
The traditionalists dealt a serious blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury by claiming he can no longer hold the church together.
They warned that the church is gripped by its most serious crisis since the Reformation, and could only be saved by the repentance of the Americans who triggered the row by ordaining an openly homosexual bishop, the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, five years ago.
The formal pronouncement of the schism is contained in an 89-page document titled “The Way, the Truth and the Life”, which has been drawn up by conservative Anglicans ahead of the breakaway Gafcon summit next week and which has been seen by The Telegraph.
It is supported by the heads of key African churches including Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda, who represent almost half of Anglican worshippers.
The Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter AkinolaThe Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, states in one section: “There is no longer any hope, therefore, for a unified Communion.
“Now we confront a moment of decision.
“If we fail to act, we risk leading millions of people away from the faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures and also, even more seriously, we face the real possibility of denying Our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
“We want unity, but not at the cost of relegating Christ to the position of another ‘wise teacher’ who can be obeyed or disobeyed.
“We earnestly desire the healing of our beloved Communion, but not at the cost of re-writing the Bible to accommodate the latest cultural trend.
“We have arrived at a crossroads; it is, for us, the moment of truth.’’
He said schism could only be avoided in the unlikely event that churches which tolerate homosexual clergy and same-sex blessings change their ways.
“Repentance and reversal by these North American provinces may yet save our Communion,’’ the archbishop wrote.
He referred to the Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops which takes place next month, as effectively a lame duck event because he and other “orthodox” bishops will not attend.
And he called into question the power of Dr Rowan Williams in a fractured church.
“This very Communion has already been broken by the actions of the American and Canadian churches,’’ he wrote.
“The consequence is most serious, for if even a single province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity.
“Moreover, the status of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as convenor and as an instrument or focus of unity, also becomes highly questionable.’’
The final section of the booklet, titled “Our Journey Into The Future’’, was written by Canon Vinay Samuel, an Indian-born theologian based at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.
“We see a parallel between contemporary events and events in England in the sixteenth century,’’ he wrote.
“Now, after five centuries, a new fork in the road is appearing.”
The booklet, written over the past six months, was put together by a group called the Theological Resource Team.
More than 100 of the traditionalists met yesterday at a hotel on the Jordanian shore of the Dead Sea to agree how it would be made public.
There was some disagreement about whether it was a template for a schism, which could lead to a new “orthodox” wing of the church, or merely a realignment of Anglicanism’s power base away from Canterbury.
Next week about 1,000 senior conservative figures, including Archbishop Akinola and other African and South American leaders, will meet in Jerusalem to discuss the way forward at Gafcon.
The city’s annual gay parade is due to take place at the same time.
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:52 am #
William
“I really don’t get what you’re asking for. I can’t critique a correct post. Michael is correct. Mary was incorrect. I think you’re trying to be fair, but this is not an issue of fairness; it’s an issue of correctness
If I may permit me to respond.
Please could you preface your response with “in your opinion it is correct”, becuase that is basically what it is one man’s opinion which you are entitled to just as much as Mary was entitled to her opinion, much of which I feel was actually correct, though clearly you duisagree.These are opinions we are talking about and they should not be passed off as incontrovertibel fatcs whcih are beyond dispute. How can you possibly have a reasonable discussion with anyone if they insist that they a\re “coreecgt” all the time.
This is not an infallible biblical doctirine we are talking about, it is your interpretaTION OF A SUBJECT. wWhy treat it as though it is above reproach and question. LIt is not, ist is open for cdebate and dis cussion..
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:58 am #
To continue…
This is not an infallible biblical doctirine we are talking about, it is your interpretation of and opinion ona particular subject matter. Why treat it as though it is above reproach and question. Like it or not it is is open for debate and discussion. You appeared to be encouraging this sort of debate yesterday!
Can I also ask you to sit down and reflect on one thing. That was the frist time I had seen Mary’s name on this site. Her posting was gracious and polite. It would not surprise me if she was not to be seen again for many a day, if every point she makes is butchered and taken apart to such a degree by people such as yourself.
This may not have been your intention, but it may certainly be the effect.
Lisa R on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:24 am #
Mom of 4, I think you hit the nail on the head “we live in a fallen world”. So I’d like to infuse that concept to ask that we think about a different perspective regarding the people that we deem are “sucking the system dry”.
Vladimir is correct. There is a subculture of transient homeless who shuffle from shelter to shelter. These are the same ones who you will often find on the street panhandling. These are folks who are most likely to utilize costlier resources of the system – ambulance services, emergency rooms, and prison. The federal government has a definition for these folks, which Chronically Homeless. To get a tad technical, here is the definition:
An individual that has experienced at least a year of continuous homeless OR 4 episodes in the past 3 years AND has a disabling condition.
The disabling condition btw, is usually substance abuse and/or mental illness but can include other conditions such as physical impairedness or chronic disease.
If you’ve ever examined the case file of such individuals (and I have), you find some very troubling facts including histories of all kinds of brokenness and yes even evil that has been done to them, which they may have perpetuated including childhood sexual abuse, violence, domestic instability, neglect and crime. Oh and then there are various forms of mental illness, which is another chapter in itself. Telling them “hey bum, just get a job” does present some challenges.
Oh and as a side note, I have found these histories to be present in other folks that would not fall into the chronically homeless category but struggle with attaining a productive life.
Imagine how we who know Christ would handle such issues in our lives. Then imagine the hopelessness of those who don’t and find their only attachment to stability in patterns of extended shelter usage and community street living. Sure there are some that will seek to beat the system. But overwhelmingly, these are folks that have been beaten so down by life that dispair has translated into utter uselessness. There is also a strong element of fear going on as well. It is a product of the fall.
I think we need to think about that next time we are so quick to castigate the folks that are sucking the system dry.
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:47 am #
Vladimir
Thank you for your s comments. Please permit me to respond.
1. Response 1. Re: The Poor. I too have many years of ministering in one of the toughest and poorest areas of the United Kingdom and have been doing so for the last 15 years. Please do not say I have no experience. Do you know? Have you ever had the decency or courtesy to ask? Or have you merely jumped to your conclusion?
2 Response 2. You are right in this respect. I will endeavour to make my first response correct in future. If I fail,Im know it might be hard for you, but do please be try and be gracious enough to forgive me.
3. Response 3. As regards my issues concerning myself, it might be helpful Vladimir if you took a closer glance in a mirror occasionally.
4. Response 4 I’m sorry, I disagree. It may look like it to you from the outside, but the split is not as cut and dry as you have stated and if you were to ask who has had by far the more influential,positive, edifying and beneficial effect on the Christian faith…NT Wright or Vladimir..well I’m afraid it is him my friend..it ain’t you!…and by a vast margin!..Also he gained his Doctorate at a far earlier age than you if you do not mind me saying so.
5. Response 5 re my age and impudence. I don’t know whether I should be flattered at how young you think I actually am..Again methinks you have presumed too much! You certainly have never asked me!
To put the record straight I am actually 45 years of age, have been following the Lord for 28 years..not quite 35 but not that far behind and with 15 years experience in church leadership. So if I am 30 years your junior I guess that must make you 75. How old are you exactly if you do not mind me asking? If you are 75 it may be a good idea to speed up the completion of your doctorate.
In my “youth” I was President of the University Christian Union, holding together people from every possible side of the Christian denominational spectrum, including some of those pesky darned terribly apostate Anglicans as well as more than a few extremely strict and severe down the line Calvinists. I sought to treat all with respect, whatever their evangelical background and listened and learnt a lot from them as I hope and believe they did from me.
I also spent a couple of years as a Regional Representative on the National Executive Board of the University and Colleges Christian Fellowship, the British version of the conservative evangelical Inter Varsity Fellowship.
All I can say is that I know that Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow, but I don’t thi k he ever envisaged narrowing it down as much as you appear to do.
How many people outside of your own denomination do you regularly mix with, fellowship with and listen to. It may be a lot, but it certainly doesn’t feel like it.
Also, by logical inference, those conservative evangelical Anglicans who have seceded from the Anglican church are still sacerdotal in their theology, still operate under an episcopal hierarchy and are hence surely in your opinion as apostate and hellbound as I am! I hate to remind you Vladimir, but God is the final arbiter and perfect judge of such things..you are most certainly not! Maybe you should stop trying to do his job for him, he has not delegated such authority to you.
As for my training. I do have one degree and have at times thought about doing a Masters but it has not yet transpired but it may be a possibility one day. So please, do not treat me and talk to me as if I am an uneducated imbecile.
As for my theological training, I am a Licensed Reader in the Anglican church. My training took three years and was very thorough and demanding. It was one of the most stretching and demanding training courses I have ever undertaken, so much so that a number of candidates did not see it through. Sounds a bit like your Doctorate maybe..May I ask, do you intend to complete it, or is it still a work in progress?
I feel that you are greatly looking forward to having the title Dr before your name with all the prestige and status it will inevitably bestow. It will certainly enable you to comfortably look down on those such as myself who do not lay clam to such an august title.
Also I am not I am not simply a product of my “social setting”. You can throw that cheap slur at anyone including yourself.
Finally no…I do not and have never thought you were a country bumpkin sitting on a log! I could state the same in that you tend to view me contemptuosusly as some typical urbanite “product of his setting”.
As for the second post you gave regarding the Apostate Anglican Church I will respond to that in due course.
Can I just close by saying that unlike you, I fully expect to see you in heaven. I may try to avoid you for a while but I do expect to see you there! It is a good job there are many rooms in our Father’s mansion because we may have to have to avoid each other for a while. When I do eventually bump into you I sure look forward to you lecturing me when I get there about just how wrong I have been.
As for “You don’t want to know” Talk about me being impudent! I am almost aghast at the audacity of such a comment! Whenever have you asked me anything about my circumstances or situations before rushing to unfounded conclusions.
Phil
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 12:12 pm #
Michael
Thank you, as ever, for your gracious response.
I am in full; agreement with your comments regarding the Sovereignty of God and how they should respond.
Unlike yourself, there do still seem to appear to be many who are panic-mongering at the result of an Obama victory, if and when it occurs.
If all Republicans held to your considered view there would be no problem. But I have seen so many reasons given why people should not vote for Obama and virtually no reasons given for why they should vote for John McCain..or..heaven forbid…Sarah Palin… should anything happen to John McCain. That’s when we should really worry about God’s Sovereignty!
I would be deeply grateful if Republicans could begin to start telling me what they are for..annd not what they are against..it is just continouous ongoing negativity at the moment.
Wm Tanksley on 31 Oct 2008 at 12:17 pm #
This thread is getting disgusting.
No. I am not here to state my opinion. I am here to examine facts and exhibit the implications. If my only support for my beliefs were that they were MINE, I would not want to post them here. If you can show — with evidence — that I posted something ONLY because it was my opinion, and not because there is support for it, I will admit to being at least insufficient in my research.
Clearly you like Mary’s post. Can you tell us why? Can you defend her post? Can you at least rebut my examination of her post?
I don’t claim to be correct all the time. I only state what I see and how my reasoning leads me to conclude from that. There’s nothing incontrovertible about that; go ahead and ARGUE if you disagree.
Please. Argue.
What on earth are you talking about? When have I ever discouraged debate in any way? I was DEBATING! I even agreed with several of her points, and wrote about that. How can debating discourage debate?
Please, what are you so offended about? What did I say? I seriously don’t see why you’re accusing me of these things.
“People such as yourself?” And what sort of people might that be? Please be clear — what names are you calling me? Clearly you don’t wish to describe me as “gracious” or “polite”.
You’re seriously calling my posting a butchery… I ask that you substantiate that.
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 12:22 pm #
Hi William
Thank you for your response.
I am replying simply to say that I will not be able to respond to your latest comment now, but I am not “running away”, I simply have other things to do.
I shall attempt to respond to your comment sometime over the weekend if I can.
It may also help to have a little “cooling down” time.
Regards
Phil
kwk on 31 Oct 2008 at 12:48 pm #
The comments seem to have gotten quite far afield from the original post. To quantitatively address the claims implicit in Michael’s beer-drinking analogy, I found some numbers from the Tax Policy Center regarding McCain’s tax plan (they have info on Obama too, but it is not salient for this particular discussion). These show that, not only are the richest getting more money from their tax breaks, they are getting a greater percentage reduction in their taxes. Specifically, someone making $35K annually gets ~0.3% savings, whereas someone making $600K annually gets ~1.3% savings (see below).
So even granting Michael’s assumption that “roughly the same amount” of reduction in cost is truly the equitable way to treat the beer-drinkers, we are still faced with the problem that Michael’s entire analogy fails to capture the realities of the current politico-economic situation. An accurate analogy would require the biggest contributor to get four times the “rebate” (in percentage terms) that the smallest contributor receives.
One could, I suppose, argue that any graduated tax system is inherently unfair, so anything that closes the percentage gap of that system is more fair to those who are paying the higher percentage. But that was not the argument being made. Nor do I actually believe that we can say absolutely (i.e. on either purely logical or on the grounds of Revealed truth) that a graduated tax system is morally better or worse than a flat tax system.
And then there is still the question of the systemic inequities that will disproportionately affect the poor and needy. While I agree in principle that Christian charity ought not be forcibly mandated by the government, the government also ought not make the situation worse for those most in need of charity. In American society, individuals who are wronged by large non-personal and amoral entities (say, a pharmaceutical corporation guilty of environmental degradation affecting the health of nearby residents, or a payday lender charging usurious interest for short-term loans) rarely have the individual power to correct the situation. So it seems to me eminently practical to invest such power in an entity that has at least a modicum of accountability to the populace at large–that is, the government. For that reason, although government greed is certainly reprehensible, corporate greed seems to me even more dangerous. I’d invite everyone to become reacquainted with the book of Amos for God’s take on a society that turns a blind eye toward (or even enshrines) avarice in personal and business dealings.
Anyway, here are the numbers for McCain’s tax plan:
INCOME % OF POP. SAVINGS TAX RATE
Less than $18,981 20% -$21 4.4%
$18,982 to $37,595 20% -$118 10.2%
$37,596 to $66,354 20% -$325 16.2%
$66,355 to $111,645 20% -$994 18.7%
$111,645 to $160,972 10% -$2,584 20.8%
$160,973 to $226,918 5% -$4,437 22.1%
$226,919 to $603,402 4% -$8,159 24.0%
$603,403 and up 1% -$48,862 27.0%
Wm Tanksley on 31 Oct 2008 at 1:17 pm #
That’s a fair question, but this election IS a choice between two alternatives; accepting one is ALWAYS going to reject the other. Perhaps we’d see less negativity if the nation used Approval Voting instead… But that’s a different issue. The two sides have been negative from the beginning, just as has been the case in all the races from the start.
What I’m _for_ is a candidate who’s proven his ability to work with the opposition in spite of disapproval from his own side — and still come back and work with both sides. I’m for a candidate who’s consistently spoken and voted against corrupting practices, big and small. I’m for a candidate who’s designed, implemented, and in most cases gained approval for very complex legislation that has worked fairly well, in spite of the complexities and compromises inherent in the process of approval.
The details of policy the presidential candidates present now will matter little in the face of Congress, which will establish the actual policy. How they work with Congress will be the turning point.
I think that one of the most poisonous features of Bush was his subservience to the Republican “brand”; it seems that any bill passed by Republicans was good enough for him, no matter the details. McCain unmistakably does NOT have that problem. It’s not clear to me whether Obama can also stand against his party in any meaningful way — I only know of one example of him doing so, for the very nice Coburn-Obama government accountability act, which was not particularly effectively opposed (to say the least). Compare this to the “gang of 14″, or the unsuccessful immigration reforms; those were firestorms.
Jason on 31 Oct 2008 at 2:01 pm #
My somewhat contrary attitude produces a desire to see an Obama presidency. If only to spite those mainstream media commentators who seem to think that the colour of his skin and his liberal credentials would make him a great president.
Not that I’d support McCain either.
The only contender in the American elections that I’d support would be Ron Paul, and I’m not an American anyway.
C Michael Patton on 31 Oct 2008 at 3:42 pm #
First and foremost, I would like to see a president who has a genuine love for this country. Without this, consideration is not an option.
This is what is the greatest Obama weakness in my opinion. I don’t see love for this country, but a love for a liberal policy. In fact, from what I can see, Obama seems to have a chip on his shoulder concerning the US. This is illustrated by his worldview, comments about the religious, associations with anti-Americans, and socialistic policies.
In my view, his plans are “It has not worked in the last few years [worked being relative], so let’s change everything—including what America is about at the most fundamental level.
I can understand how someone who is not an American can be enamored by his representation, but you must understand how un-American (bordering on anti-American) he feels to many of us.
In other words, he ain’t no Jack Baur!
C Michael Patton on 31 Oct 2008 at 3:55 pm #
kwk,
It would seem that your stats above support the analogy quite a bit. If the last gets beat up by the first seven and decides not to show back up and if the others see the seventh getting beat up, do you think that they will want to be seventh. The workforce loses its drive to motivate. Not only this, but the seventh will no longer be able to employ the first six. Now we are all out of luck. What do you we? Let big brother take care of it?
Mary B. on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:23 pm #
First of all, thanks britphil for your kind welcome and words of support. Please don’t worry too much about me running
If I turn out to not post very often, it’s only due to lack of time or lack of anything useful
away due to a rude reception – I’ve spent time in forums that make this one look almost unnaturally polite,
even in disagreement.
to say.
Second, I don’t yet know how to use the quote thingies, so if anyone wants to explain, please feel free. I’ll try my best
to format my posts so that they are clear even without using them.
“How does this analogy apply? It seems incredibly weak.
Money IS regulated, just as abortion and marriage is.
There are things you can and can’t do with it.
You can’t claim that a paper you printed in your basement
is legal tender (especially if it almost looks like a US
banknote), and you can’t demand that the IRS respect an
inheritance tax exemption based on a marriage
that’s polygamous.”
This is clearly true, however, I’m not sure it negates my argument. If you’re arguing that minimal government intervention is always best (as was the post I responded to), then the current conservative position on abortion and homosexual marriage is inconsistent, because minimal intervention would include not intervening on people’s regulation of their own bodies and the formation of their own families. These things affect the actual workings of society even less than taxation policy,
if only because they affect so very few people.
“Absolutely. Why should that be in hospital policies at all?
It doesn’t seem to have anything fundamental to do with
marriage.”
It has to do with marriage because under certain circumstances only family members have a right to visit patients. If homosexuals aren’t allowed to marry, they often don’t have the legal right to be known as a family member, and therefore aren’t allowed to see their life partners in those circumstances – which I hardly need to point out are often the exact circumstances where a caring person would want them to have that right. Along those lines, homosexuals don’t have clear next-of-kin connections, don’t have the right to make medical decisions for their life partners, and often can’t obtain domestic partner insurance. It’s possible to work around some of these inadequacies by dint of extreme legal entanglement, but it would be far simpler, more cost-effective, and kinder to simply give homosexuals the right to marry.
Now, the reason I brought this into the argument is because the main Christian argument for the government regulation of marriage is moral. “God says this is wrong”, so therefore it can’t be allowed to happen. But by trying to force the government to back your side of the argument, you’re forcing other Americans who happen to be non-believers to live by your version of morality. This, to my mind, doesn’t exactly scream “small, non-involved government”.
I think that if I had been arguing about redistributive taxes, you’d have a point, but that wasn’t the point I was
making. I was just trying to make the point that often the conservatives in this country, especially the religious
conservatives, tend to scream “Small government! Keep the government out of my life!” but don’t seem to appreciate
that by trying to legislate their particular version of morality, they are forcing government intrusion into MY life.
“Everyone has access to medical care. The problem with
our current system is finding out who pays the bills, and
how much they are. (Have you ever tried to find how
much a medical procedure will cost before receiving it?
Good luck!) With a single-payer system we’ll know who
pays, but we’ll lose all track of how much the bills are.”
This is a huge stretch. In theory, maybe. In practice, I would argue that not everyone does. I know that anyone certainly
COULD go see the doctor, even without insurance – and that anyone certainly COULD incur several hundred dollars of debt that he or she may not be able to afford. In theory, a person COULD spend several hundred dollars a month on health insurance that would still only pay 80% of any bills incurred, but…if the person in question can’t afford a few hundred here and a few hundred there for minor injuries, how are they supposed to pay a hundred or so every month? I know I personally haven’t been to see a dentist in over 5 years, because I simply cannot afford it and have no way, currently, to cut my expenses in order to save for it. I believe this is the situation for many people.
Mary B. on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:31 pm #
Ok, so with that taken care of, now I WILL argue about distributive taxes.
Sorry for the length, I have a tendency to write novels.
“Redistributing money for the sake of fairness is indulging in an expensive and counterproductive fantasy.”
The thing is, our tax system has been regressive since before I was born. There is virtually no chance that McCain
will take our tax system and convert it to a flat tax, and that is the ONLY way that tax policy can achieve the feat of being “non-redistributive”.
The analogy I have used in the past is as follows:
Person A makes $1000/mo.
Person B makes 10,000/mo.
In scenario 1, both pay a flat 10% tax. That means that person A brings home $900 per month in spendable cash. Person B brings home $9000. Which person is being hurt more by this tax scheme? Person A only loses $100/mo, while Person B loses $1000 a month. However, Person A is losing the equivalent of two weeks worth of groceries, or a car payment, whereas Person B is losing money that basically will go toward entertainment or a third car or what-have-you.
In scenario 2, Person A pays no tax and Person B pays 36% (I don’t know if that’s his actual tax bracket, but I’m
guessing it’s fairly close). That means that person A is living on $1000/mo, and person B is living on $6400/mo. He’s
losing $3600/mo now, or $1600 more than he was in the first scenario. Person A will still be living with a roommate in a crappy apartment, but she now has the ability to buy a pair of shoes or a new pair of jeans when she needs them.On the other hand, person B can still afford to buy a house with a total mortgage cost of $576,000 (by total mortgage cost I mean the final amount of money spent including fees and interest, assuming a 30-year fixed mortgage totalling one quarter of after-tax income). Person A has a tiny bit more security, while Person B is….still doing just fine.
Scenario 2 is currently the basis for our tax system. This has been the basis of our tax system for quite a long time.
The theory is that it’s no good to tax people who are already poor, because EACH DOLLAR means more when you only have a small amount to work with in the first place. A flat tax would disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged, causing them to fall further and further behind, and in effect concentrating the money in the hands of those who already have it. In other words, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer – which is exactly what has happened over the course of the last decade or so. Right now, the richest 1% control 20%, or one-fifth, of the wealth in this country – which is par for the course for times with the Republicans are in control of the government. I read a study (which I will endeavor to find again) that pointed out that income inequality has NEARLY ALWAYS grown under Republican governmental control. Now, I haven’t seen any hard statistics on this, but it’s my feeling that extreme income inequality has negative consequences just as surely as over-taxation. If nothing else, it gives lie to the good, old-fashioned American Dream – it makes it much, much harder for the poor to even hold steady in life, much less move ahead.
So I’m not sure why the whole “redistribution” talking point has become such an effective scare tactic, or “an expensive and counterproductive fantasy”, when it is in fact the exact way things work now. I can only guess that people take “redistribution” to mean that people’s bank accounts are being robbed directly to send checks to homeless people with a letter that says “Enjoy a $10 bottle of tequila today instead of a $5 bottle!” The ONLY thing the candidates in this election disagree on is the degree to which the tax system should be tweaked. Personally, I highly doubt that Obama has any desire to push our taxes to the heights
of some truly socialist countries. I doubt we will ever see 98% tax rates on even very rich people, or really even 60%.
And speaking of
“Taxes are not immoral, of course. Neither is borrowing.
But both can be done wisely or foolishly” –
considering the state of our country and the incredible hugeness of our debt, I’m not sure how it can be argued that a measured tax increase is either immoral OR foolish. In fact, I would say that to lower taxes now would be the height of irresponsibility and foolishness! We have taken on so many new obligations and so much debt that there is NO way a tax cut would be able to pay for itself (if it ever does, which I’m not sure can be proven).
As a kind of global aside, I’d also like to note that plenty of socialist countries enjoy as good or better health and quality of life as Americans on the whole, even with their high taxation. I’m not suggesting that we emulate them in every particular, but I think it’s useful to note that our system is not the only system that works.
Jason on 01 Nov 2008 at 12:01 am #
The technique is to put “blockquote” and “/blockquote” in wrapped in “less than” and “greater than” signs.
minnowspeaks on 01 Nov 2008 at 7:09 am #
@Jason– The statistic (16 trillion) could obviously be wrong but I got it from David Barrett, Tom Johnson, and Peter Crossing, “Missiometrics: Creating Your Own Analysis of Global Data”, International Bulletin of Misonary Research Vol. 31, #1 p. 8.
@ Wm Tanksley–”I cannot be perturbed” LOL. Granted BritPhil can at times make that truly easy and truth be know he has seemed uncaracteristically peturbed himself in this discussion.
@BritPhil–Deep breath friend. Should senator Obama win this election (or not), it does not affect the sovereignty of God. Nor shall it affect the degree to which I up hold my president in prayer. I realize you asked us to answer what we are for rather than consentrate on what we are against and I have done so quite a lot on my own blog. My problem with Obama (and democrats in general) is that he seems to think more government can solve all our problems. I do not. I do not believe goverment has a heart or a conscious so I also believe that “the least of these” are at an especially greater risk when they are at the mercy of the government. My disappointment in the Church is that we have dropped the ball when it come to being the hands, feet, eyes, ears, and heart of Christ. It is to OUR shame that any would see Senator Obama ( or the government) as savior.
Vladimir on 01 Nov 2008 at 2:51 pm #
britphil,
Let me begin by saying I don’t form my opinions apart from the written word of God, and even then I try to be gracious.
What irks me about you is your presumption. You presume to “divine” into what I’m going to say in response before I have done so. What is the point of having a conversation if you already know everything?
Contrary to your assumption, I don’t have it in for you. YOUR SOUL is worth more than all the world has to offer, i.e., if Christ’s words carry any merit.
My issues (with you or whoever) center on biblical truth. Consequently, I would appreciate it if we could in the future focus on the issues and not the person.
Dr. N.T. Wright, for all this worth and value, is mislead and misleads people in his teaching on justification. It is of little consequence that he is the bishop of Durham or a self claimed evangelical. (I personally judge each evangelical on an individual basis – not on a lump sum nomenclature avowal).
So too, it is of little purport when you tell me that you are a reader in the Anglican communion. I base my remarks not on this but on what you say and advocate in light of God’s word.
Your question about my doctorate is irrelevant to the discussion. In America they are a dime-a-dozen accomplishment. If I finish it, it will be from an overseas institution.
In saying this I don’t mean to belittle the process, but the quality varies greatly from individual to individual. Keeping the commandments of God is more important and to know HIM is life eternal.
Vladimir
Todd on 01 Nov 2008 at 10:52 pm #
I think the frustrating thing is everyone is debating over increased taxes while the bigger issue is cutting spending first. I do not want to be an enabler of the government. If you have an aquaintence that is mis-handling their money, isn’t it immoral to give them more money? Throwing money at problems doesn’t help. Looking within ourselves to meet the challenge is much more effective. We must force the gov’t to control their spending first and show us they can responsibly manage the money we give them before even considering raising anyones taxes. They have successfully encouraged this class warfare to make the issue about raising taxes, not fiscal prudence. Every time they talk about taxes, we must talk about controlling spending first.
Wm Tanksley on 01 Nov 2008 at 11:55 pm #
Todd, I feel the same way; too often when discussing balancing the budget the FIRST idea is to raise taxes, when cutting expenses should be first. Anyone who’s ever balanced a REAL budget could tell you that — it’d be NICE to vote myself a bigger salary, but money doesn’t grow on trees.
When congress does vote itself a bigger salary, the economy inevitably shrinks. This doesn’t mean the tax increase brings in less money, but it does mean it brings in less than expected — and far worse, it takes more than anticipated.
Wm Tanksley on 02 Nov 2008 at 12:14 pm #
I hope my attempts to debate didn’t actually come across as rude.
They’re hard to learn about, but simple to use. To quote a paragraph, type it like this:
(blockquote)I’ll try my best(/blockquote)
…but instead of parentheses, use less-than and greater-than symbols.
I’m not — I’m just rebutting your position, not arguing for the one previously presented. I’m not sure what the post you responded to was; I was responding to what you wrote, not anything else.
I’m talking about the subject of this thread — redistributive taxation.
I do think that minimal government is best, but I think you’d agree with me if I explained that “minimal” means “the most efficient means to reach the desired ends.” (I don’t mean that to be a tautology; I just mean that you don’t want to spend MORE effort than you have to.)
In other words, if we disagree on the scope of government, it’s only because we have different goals for it. “Being small” is not a goal in itself.
Let’s explore this.
Surely so. But once tax law attempts to define what a family is, surely that definition is of concern to all of us. And if you claim that each abortion only affects one woman’s body, you are simply ignoring facts. There are (at least) two people affected by each successful abortion, and one of them is killed every time.
Same-sex marriage isn’t about intervening in the formation of families; government is rightly not allowed to intervene in that anymore. It’s actually about requiring some people to recognize other people’s families. I say that a same-sex union is not a marriage at all; they say that if I refuse to recognize them, I’m breaking the CA constitution. Same-sex unions are not part of this debate; they were passed by the CA legislature a while ago.
So minimal government can refuse to pass legislation about same-sex marriage — because that minimal government doesn’t want to take the role of societal change.
If you want same-sex marriage to be recognized and approved, you should work to change society at least to the point that a same-sex initiative could pass in a vote; you shouldn’t be overeager to have a panel of judges pass it in direct contravention of all civil statute and popular vote on the matter (because what you want IS popular recognition).
Of course, if you wanted a REALLY small government, you could always urge them to get out of the marriage-sanctioning business. The problem is that if they did this, they’d be unable to set family-forming policy, which happens to be probably the single most enduring way of enacting social change. I think you’d have a hard time convincing government to get out of the way on that.
Abortion has killed almost 53 million people since Roe v. Wade — just counting the ones that were intentionally killed by it. How is that “very few people”?
But same-sex marriage doesn’t touch on the moral issue; if anything, it’s better than what’s being presented as the alternative (random hook-ups). Homosexuality itself is what touches on that moral issue, and banning that is not even in question.
So this isn’t about “small government” versus “big government” or “morality enforcement”. It’s more about what sort of arrangements will be incentivized by law. I hold that traditional marriage — one man, one woman, for life — is the most effective, simple, stable, and proven way of raising children, and that couples should be encouraged to enter into and stay in it. This doesn’t mean that we must discourage other arrangements — but it means that we need not pretend that they’re the same thing.
I apologize for missing your point, then; thanks for clarifying. I definitely thought you were talking about redistributive taxes, since that’s the topic of this thread.
-Wm
Wm Tanksley on 02 Nov 2008 at 12:54 pm #
You meant to type “progressive”, not “regressive”. I agree, otherwise. But this doesn’t mean that we should support tax policy that explicitly takes money from one group and writes checks to another group. You explain well why it makes sense to take less from the poor; but that doesn’t make it sensible to count money given to them as a “tax cut”.
That’s not self-evident; it doesn’t even particularly make sense. If you were to claim that to poor have gotten poorer THAT would prove your point; but it’s not true. The poor have gotten ever more prosperous, in absolute terms. Individual income keeps going up (although a recent study shows household income has gone down, that’s most likely caused by the average household size going down). More importantly, income mobility has not gone down; it’s still common (although undeniably not common enough) for the poor to rise out of their poverty — individually, not statistically. This fact is the reason why Clinton’s welfare reform, which Obama spoke against at the time, saved money.
Would you be willing for me to record that into a commercial to be played over Obama’s claims to be the bigger tax cutter?
It’s clear that a tax cut CAN pay for itself (consider a cut from the high 90%s); if it’s ever possible, it’s most likely to happen in a time of economic turmoil, because that’s when it will help the most to have commerce less hindered.
But I say again that the only way out of our huge debt is the same way any individual would take: cut spending and start setting money aside. We can’t count on raising our own income, either by tax increases or by economic growth; we have to be responsible either way the economy turns.
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 7:27 am #
He referred to the Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops which takes place next month, as effectively a lame duck event because he and other “orthodox” bishops will not attend.
And he called into question the power of Dr Rowan Williams in a fractured church.
“This very Communion has already been broken by the actions of the American and Canadian churches,’’ he wrote.
“The consequence is most serious, for if even a single province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity.
“Moreover, the status of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as convenor and as an instrument or focus of unity, also becomes highly questionable.’’
The final section of the booklet, titled “Our Journey Into The Future’’, was written by Canon Vinay Samuel, an Indian-born theologian based at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.
“We see a parallel between contemporary events and events in England in the sixteenth century,’’ he wrote.
“Now, after five centuries, a new fork in the road is appearing.”
Hi Vladimir
Thanks for your comments.
Actually, I think what may have annoyed the GAFCON people a little was that this year’s Lambeth Conference was not a “lame duck” at all, but a fairly successful Conference. The reason being that, in the absence of the GAFCON membership, there was able to take place some healthy considered debate held in a atmosphere of genuine respect for each other’s thoughts, views and opinions, without the need to resort to angry invective and abusive remarks such as happened at the last Conference when all Archbishops and Bishops were present.
What I am about to say next will probably astound you. Up until the GAFCON breakaway, I was actually a fairly strong advocate of the fulcrum of power being at least shared or moved away from Canterbury to the African church. What I did not like is the manner in whch it was carried out. I was hugely impressed by the evangelical Archbishop John Sentamu, our Uganda born and educated Archbishop of York when he publicly stated his support fro Rowan Williams at the Lambeth Conference.
I now no longer support such a “power shift” given the actions I have observed by some of the GAFCON membership. Also, I do not believe the GAFCON Bishops were as sorely missed as Lambeth as they would like to think or believe they were!
Many of us, myself included, have been appalled at the deliberate attempts to undermine Rowan Williams’ authority in an attempt to seize power. Do you not get the impression that Peter Akinola wants to be an Archbishop of Canterbury-in-Africa and has forced this through without any discussion.
I am also a realist. There are virtually three churches in one church anyway (ie liberal,.evangelical, Anglo-Catholic) and if there is a split it may be of God’s doing, it may even be desirable, but as with most splits, even though he does not wish it to happen, I am convinced that God will continue to move powerfully by His Spirit through individual Christians and churches on both sides of the divide.
I am very rarely, if ever, in agreemnt with Katharine Jefferts Schori, but on one thing I agree with her completely.. Once a Bishop, Archbishior or clergyman/woman has decided to cede, they and their families should be removed from their homes with immediate effect and all pension arrangements as well as housing/salary arrangements IMMEDIATELY become the responsibility of the GAFCON organisation. The property belongs to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and under no circumstances whatsoever should clergy, Bishops or Archbishops be permitted to sponge parasitically, or thieve from, the church they have no wish to belong to. They have made their decision and that decision has practical consequnces. It sounds tough but immediate eviction of incumbents and their families should take place once that decision has been made.
I have a great deal of time for Canon Vijay Samuel, as I do for many within the GAFCON fold, and if there is a new fork appearing, it is up to each of us to decide which for in the road we are going to take.
“I gather from your posts that you are …..simply a product of your social setting – the apostate (according to the Bible) Anglican communion.”
This is where I found your argument more than a bit confusing. You seem to be very sympathetic towards Peter Akinola, Peter Jensen, Vijay Samuel etc.. Yet they are still Anglican in their practice and sacerdotal by nature. Is this an Orwellian case of “All Anglicans are apostate, bit those on GAFCON are less apostate than the other?”
“ Next month about 1,000 senior conservative figures, including Archbishop Akinola and other African and South American leaders, will meet in Jerusalem to discuss the way forward at GAFCON..
The city’s annual gay parade is due to take place at the same time.”
The thing which has not been mentioned here is that the GAFCON group are an alliance of conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholic traditionalists. Can I just state that the “same-sex” issue is not the domain purely of the liberal Catholic wing of the Church.
There are certain adherents (though by no means all) within the Anglo-Catholic fraternity which can only be described as “pure camp”, manifesting itself, amongst other things, in the dressing up in layers upon layers of colourful vestments. I can assure you, their flamboyance would not look at all out of place in the gay parade. You may even find that, after the meeting has finished, one or two of the GAFCON bishops might secretly head for the streets to enjoy the party!
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 7:51 am #
I thought I would celebrate hitting the 100 mark for this thread by posing a bit of an awkward question.
I was browsing through the BBC teletext’s in-depth analysis of the American election. They had a profile on Barack Obama and a profile on John McCain.
I almost fell off my chair when I read this comment.
“McCain has gained the ire of many social conservatives by his relatively moderate views on gay civil unions, abortion and immigration reform”
Given that many conservative evangelicals’ decision on who they are going to vote for is largely, and in some cases, solely dominated and framed by the abortion or gay civil union issue, why has this not been a contentious issue for some of the more conservative evangelicals on this site. Why have they not been willing to debate and discuss it more openly?
Even more insidiously, it exposes quite clearly the reason why Sarah Palin was appointed as his running mate. It was to appease the bloodlust of the conservative right, an is an action that has been swallowed uncritically hook, line and sinker. But it is not Palin who is being voted for, it is McCain.
Can someone please explain to me why it is acceptable to vote for McCain given his moderate views as opposed to Obama?
Yet again are we in Orwellian territory, ie all moderates on abortion/gay civil rights are downright evil, but some (ie McCain) are much less evil than others (ie Obama).
And if pro-lifers are to vote with any integrity whatsoever tomorrow should the not be either abstaining from voting or spoling their ballot papers in protest at the views of either candidate.
A pro-lifer voting for McCain, given his views appears to be a touch absurd to me, but, as so often happens, I am sure the voice of conscience will be conveniently ignored when it suits and in the case of McCain, mitigating circumstances will be sought and found.
I await your thoughts with interest.
Regards
Phil
minnowspeaks on 03 Nov 2008 at 8:32 am #
Hey Brit–I’ll take a stab at the McCain and his views on abortion question. As I have researched this particular issue I found that McCain was largely painted as a moderate for two reasons. He conceeds in the case of rape and a mother’s health that abortion should be available. And, he approves stem cell reseach on stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed. Otherwise his voting has been pretty conservative/prolife. He was painted moderate in primary campaigns when there were clearly candidates more conservative than he. Senator Obama is about as prochoice as one can get even saying he would select judges who would uphold Roe vs Wade (although not so bluntly). Perhaps those using ths issue as their sole decission maker are picking the lesser of two evils.
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 9:29 am #
Hi Minnow
Thanks for your comments.
I am glad to hear that John McCain would support abortion on those two particular issues. That is a healthy shift from the 100% anti-abortion stance.
Certain people on the conservative right are not in favour of abortion even in the case of rape, and are dubious about terminating on the grounds od protecting a mother’s health. These are the people in the Republican party who should not be voting for either candidate in my opinon, given their disposition to highlight the abortion issue at any and every possible opportunity. Such a vote could not be cast with any real sense of integrity, certainty or conviction.
I have personal experience of a committed Christian relative who was viciously raped while tending the grave of a family friend in a cemetery in broad daylight while she was still a teenager and a virgin. I can still remember the agonising wait we had to endure to discover if she was pregnant or not.
I remember thinking then, and I still believe the same now, if she had fallen pregnant, and she had decided to keep the baby as her own, or give birth to it and then offer it for adoption I would have backed her 100%.
However, if she had said that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy, I would have also supported her all the way 100%. What was the most important thing is that it would have been HER decision to make and nobody else’s! So in this type of scenario I am most definitely unashamedly pro-choice, and what is more, knowing what she had gone through, I am equally sure that God would have understood whatever decision she had made and loved her exactly the same.
With regard to getting perturbed, when someone says things about me (ie I am apostate..I would hope you do not agree, but you might!) that is fine, it is water off a duck’s back and actually I tend to find it rather amusing and view it almost as a badge of honour! After all if they are talking diSparagingly about me then at least they are leaving someone else alone!
However, what pettrubed me most was when someone else (in this instance, Barack Obama) is being attacked in the strongest terms and in the most abusive and vilest ways possible. What daisappointed me more than most was that apart from one person (Terry) nobody mailed in to challenge the tone of the language. Silence in the light off such abusive language often signifies tacit apptroval in my book. I have to say Minnow, that I did think that you would be one of the people who would have commented but sadly that was not the case. Just because you do not wish to vote for him does not mean you cannot defend him when abused in such a way does it?
Can I also ask Minnow that there is a slighly less use of the generalisation an dthe exaggeration which Republicans appear to have made into a fine art.
“eg My problem with Obama (and democrats in general) is that he seems to think more government can solve all our problems.£
I do not think that increased government is the answer to ALL our problems. It may be a partial solution to some problems, but certainly not all. It does annoy me when genrealisations are made in order to exaggerate a point, and it happens all too often I am afriad.
“My disappointment in the Church is that we have dropped the ball when it come to being the hands, feet, eyes, ears, and heart of Christ.
Secondly, I fully agree with you in the first part of this staement with the exceoption that you were not specidfic enough. Surely yopur diasappopintment must be wmore woth the conservative-ebvangeoilcal wing of the church fro they are the ones who have truly dropped the ball, that’s assuming they ecver picked it up in the first place, which is open to debate! I guess you are most disappointed with your own consituebncy which I admiore you for.
“It is to OUR shame that any would see Senator Obama ( or the government) as savior.”
Yes Minnow, I agree! But I would hjust like to contend that again this is a massiv eexaggeration. At no point have I ever in dicated that Barack Obama will eb “America’s or the world’s Saviour” There is ony one perason who lays claimt o that title and he has been, gone and at some time will retuen
I personally bel;ieve rthat Obama has a deeper level of statemsmandship and vision than McCain./ I a, also deeply impressed by the way he and Michelle have handled themselvdes, not seeing the sdeperate and opatheic need to go and Saturday Night live in a derpaerate bid tp get a few more voteas! Not onlty that there has been some horrifiic iand slanderous insinuations that have been made and Obaam has risen above it all. He is a man of really stron character, buit I do not in any way shape or formview him as a Savoiour. As I mentioned before, I have seen two British Prime Min sters arrive in similar euphoric diaster, one, Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative (Republican) and the other, Tony Blair Labour (Democrat) !
Both of them were as disastrous as each other so I am naturally averse to hailing anyone as a “Saviour”.
I do think however, that should McCain be eleceted he would be an immesureable inmprovement on the current Bush Republican administration. Having said that, wouldn’t any candidate have been able to achieve that…it wouldn’t exactly have been difficult now would it?
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 9:35 am #
I was editing it butran out of time allowed before getting to the the closing paragraphs Yes Minnow, I so here goes!
agree! But I would hjust like to contend that again this is a massiv eexaggeration. At no point have I ever in dicated that Barack Obama will eb “America’s or the world’s Saviour” There is ony one perason who lays claimt o that title and he has been, gone and at some time will retuen
I personally bel;ieve rthat Obama has a deeper level of statemsmandship and vision than McCain./ I a, also deeply impressed by the way he and Michelle have handled themselvdes, not seeing the sdeperate and opatheic need to go and Saturday Night live in a derpaerate bid tp get a few more voteas! Not onlty that there has been some horrifiic iand slanderous insinuations that have been made and Obaam has risen above it all. He is a man of really stron character, buit I do not in any way shape or formview him as a Savoiour. As I mentioned before, I have seen two British Prime Min sters arrive in similar euphoric diaster, one, Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative (Republican) and the other, Tony Blair Labour (Democrat) !
Both of them were as disastrous as each other so I am naturally averse to hailing anyone as a “Saviour”.
I do think however, that should McCain be eleceted he would be an immesureable inmprovement on the current Bush Republican administration. Having said that, wouldn’t any candidate have been able to achieve that…it wouldn’t exactly have been difficult now would it?
Vladimir on 03 Nov 2008 at 9:49 am #
britphil,
Congress has the final say in everything. Has the Bush administration failed? How so? Did Bush incite the unprincipled business practices and headless approvals to unworthies for home loans? Did Bush cause 9/11? Clinton had Usama bin Laden in his cross-hairs years ago and didn’t take him out!
What of Homeland security?
If the Bush administration has failed, Congress has failed too!
Usama, opps, Obama wants to go to war in Pakistan and he’s not even elected! Obama is a racist!
Iraq has a 450,000 man standing army and they can’t even defend their own country – STILL!
Vladimir
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:03 am #
This is how the closing stages of the post should have read! Eureka..I think I have got it right this time!
I would just like to contend that again this is a massive exaggeration. At no point have I ever indicated that Barack Obama will be “America’s or the world’s Saviour” There is only one person who lays claim to that title and he has been, gone and at some time will return.
I personally believe that Obama has a deeper level of statesmanship and a broader world vision than McCain. I also have been deeply impressed by the way he and Michelle have handled themselves, not seeing the desperate need to go on Saturday Night live a la Palin, in a pathetic bid to shore up a few more votes! Not only that, but there have been some horrific and slanderous insinuations that have been made about him, yet Obama has risen above it all. He is a man of really strong character but I do not believe he is a “saviour” in any way, shape or form.
As I have mentioned before, I have seen two British Prime Ministers arrive in similar euphoric diaster, one, Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative (Republican) and the other, Tony Blair Labour (Democrat) ! Both of them proved to be unmitigating disasters, so I am naturally averse to hailing anyone as a “Saviour”.
I do think however, that should McCain be elected he would be an immeasureable improvement on the current Bush Republican administration. Having said that, wouldn’t any candidate have been able to achieve that…it wouldn’t exactly have been difficult now would it?
I for one am not taking anything for granted. I think it will be a lot closer than people have been predicting If McCain does get in, it will not be an unmitigated disaster, I would just prefer an Obama administration personally. Either way, God will still be Sovereign on the throne, so we can all take a few deep breaths and rest assured!
Regards
Phil
Vladimir on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:04 am #
britphil,
You have entirely missed the point and issues altogether.
You remark:
“This is where I found your argument more than a bit confusing. You seem to be very sympathetic towards Peter Akinola, Peter Jensen, Vijay Samuel etc.. Yet they are still Anglican in their practice and sacerdotal by nature. Is this an Orwellian case of “All Anglicans are apostate, bit those on GAFCON are less apostate than the other?”
I know you Anglicans have canons/individuals and address them as such, but really, you have not mentioned one single verse from Scripture that supports the posture of the “apostates” within the pale of the Church.
When did the bride of Christ become a brazen whore?
Vladimir
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:11 am #
Vladimir
Please explain.
In what way exactly are we a “brazen whore?” Please, do enlighten me, I would like to know!
Sounds like yet another insulting badge of honour to add to an ever-increasing and expanding list?
Also you don’t have to mention Scripture all the time. You can argue from Scriptural principles, not merely by using Scriptural verses/proof-texts.
I would seriously contend that you often use Scripture, but some of the tone and content of your postings do not sit well with Scriptural injunctions on behaviour towards others when you look at some of their tone and content.
Vladimir on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:17 am #
britphil,
Two issues:
1. When did God ever condone homosexuality?
2. When did God condone the ordination of women to public ecclesiastical office?
Vladimir
Vladimir on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:20 am #
britphil,
“…Please, do enlighten me…”
As a public reader you should consult your oracle – the word of God. It is the Christian’s SOURCE of theology.
Vladimir
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:42 am #
God does not condone homosexual practice. Neither do I.
I do believe there are examples in Scripture where God called women to leadership. I am not going to get in a debate with you here but I believe it to be true. What I will say is that I have sat under the ministry of a number of female ordinands and I do not have any doubts whatsoever that they are called, gifted and anointed by God. A number of them are significantly better at their job and more gifted in their calling than some of the men I have encountered! Immeasureably so in some cases!
Do you also hold the Baptist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Methodist Church, Congregational Church, Presbyterian Church and parts of the Pentecostal Church as apostate, because they all ordain women? Or is just the Anglican church that is afforded that luxury?
If so, heaven is not going to be that full is it. You will have plenty of space and freedom to roam around those heavenly mansions.
Can I just mention a few names of those who have down the centuries been part of this so-called “brazen whore”.
Thomas Cranmer, Lord Shaftesbury, William Wilberforce, William Temple, Countess of Huntingdon, CS Lewis, Rev Dr John Stott, Dr J I Packer, Rev Dr Alec Motyer, NT Wright, Elaine Storkey, Donald Coggan, Desmond Tutu, David Watson, Baroness Cox, David Sheppard, George Carey, John Sentamy; Sandy Millar, Nicky Gumbel, Peter Akinola, Peter Jensen, Vijay Samuel
Given that all the above are clearly apostate and part of the brazen whore and who are in your opinion all hellbound, can I just say Vladimir, you are the only Christian I have ever met who has succeeded in making heaven appear one of the most unpleasant places to reside for all eternity, while at the same time also making hell appear to be a much more preferable and pleasing alternative. I for one do not wish to partake in your sanitised, exclusivist, isolationist version of heaven. You are more than welcome to it!
Also can I just challenge your assertion that you are using Scripture as your final authority. I think you are using your interpretation, or your denomination’s (whatever that denomination may be) interpretation of Scripture as your yardstick and treating that interpretation as if it is perfect, infallible, and beyond reproach.
In reality, your interpretation is merely the construct of a fallible human being/organisation/denomination. Nothing more and nothing less.
Wm Tanksley on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:43 am #
The answer: the site you’re quoting is falsely equating McCain and Obama on this issue. McCain’s views on both issues are moderate/conservative; Obama’s views are extremely libertine (Palin’s are extremely conservative).
Obama has backed legislation which allows doctors to freely abandon newborns to death who are born alive during abortion attempts; he has also opposed legislation which attempts to regulate and reduce this practice, so we can be assured that his intent is clear. This is not an unheard of or minor thing, either; although it’s not immensely common (since late-term abortions are unusual), it does regularly happen, and because some women have sued their doctors for malpractice after an abortion left them with a live child, doctors have a financial incentive to make sure the baby is DEAD.
This is not right; it’s not Christian; it’s not humane; it’s not HUMAN. Calling it “extreme” is taking it too lightly. It is entirely unacceptable.
“Bloodlust” is a peculiar choice of words in this instance. Do you mean “bloodless”? It would seem that a desire to see less killing of innocents wouldn’t earn the term “bloodlust”.
But yes, the purpose of Palin’s nomination was to appease the conservatives, who were and are concerned that McCain would compromise his principles in his desire for a legacy. Palin’s nomination serves as a down payment of sorts.
And it would be foolish to disregard Palin when voting for or against McCain; he won’t be serving a second term. If he’s elected and his legacy carries on, it’ll be most likely through her succeeding him.
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 10:55 am #
Hi William
“And it would be foolish to disregard Palin when voting for or against McCain; he won’t be serving a second term. If he’s elected and his legacy carries on, it’ll be most likely through her succeeding him.”
I acknowledge that you have said “if he’s elected and his legacy carries on” but isn’t is a bit presumptuous to assume that:
a the Republican party will want Sarah Palin to take over the helm as their presidential candidate if John McCain retires in four years time. Just becasue she is Vice-presidnet does not ensure her a shoe-in at the next election does it?
b given the penchant for politicians to cling onto power for as long as they possibly can, and given that Ronald Reagan was way older than McCain will be in four years time, I have my doubts that McCain would voluntarily hand over the reins to Palin anyway.
c In order to succeed him, Palin will have to elected by the public in four years time. I am not as confident as you are that she would successfully win an election campaign under her own steam given what I have seen during this campaign. This might be the biggest ask of all!
Also William, can I just say that I do not include you as someone who has a one or two issue approach to the electoral process. You appear to have a wider economic/political vision than that, which I greatly respect.
The only Republican people who I would argue should not vote for McCain are those who are against abortion full stop and there are plenty of those. I do not agree that voting for Sarah Palin is a satisfactory alternative for them. They should not, in all conscience be voting for either candidate tomorrow.
A vote merely to “stop Obama” is not a good enough argument.
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 12:24 pm #
“Clinton had Usama bin Laden in his cross-hairs years ago and didn’t take him out!
Just like Bush Senior had Saddam Hussein in his “cross-hairs years ago you mean, and failed to finish the job and take him out, which is the real reason we went into IOraq it would appear – to deal with asome unfinished family business! To try and accomplish what Dad could not!
“Obama is a racist!”
On what premise do you make this claim which is astonishing even by your standards
Given that the Bush regime has already made numerous incursions into Pakistan in recent months, killing many innocent civilians in the process, then surely your beloved George Bush Jr administration must be a racist one too!
“Iraq has a 450,000 man standing army and they can’t even defend their own country STILL!”
Isn’t that partly what the American and other allied forces are in Iraq to do, to train and equip the Iraqis to defend their own country. Well it can’t be claimed to be a “job well done” exactly, can it?
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 12:39 pm #
Vadimir
While I would never subscribe to your view that Obama is a racist, I do have experience of inter-ethnic hostility and tension.
The city where I studied for my degreee is one of the most multi-ethnic integrated cities in the whole of the UK.
During my time od study there, Indira Gandhi the Inadian Prime Min siter was shot dead.
I can remember the palpable tension there ws between Sikhs and Hindus and the acts of exteme violene that took place in the aftermath of her death.
Racis is deplorable and unacceptable whether it is white upon black, black upon white, or inter-ething iie basded ion tribe, religion, sect or caste rather than on coskin colour.
britphil on 03 Nov 2008 at 12:43 pm #
Vladimir
I apologise profusely…I should have got it right first time and didn’t! It should have read…
While I would never subscribe to your view that Obama is a racist, I do have experience of inter-ethnic hostility and tension.
The city where I studied for my degree is one of the most multi-ethnic integrated cities in the whole of the UK.
During my time of study there, Indira Gandhi the Indian Prime Minister was shot dead.
I can remember the palpable tension there was during the immediate aftermath between Sikhs and Hindus, and the acts of exteme violence that took place following her death.
Racism is deplorable and unacceptable whether it is white upon black, black upon white, or inter-ethnic ie based on tribe, religion, sect or caste rather than on skin colour.
Wm Tanksley on 03 Nov 2008 at 2:48 pm #
No… It just means that she’s what he’s chosen right now as his legacy. She wasn’t chosen because she was the next biggest vote-getter in the primaries (that’s the traditional way to choose a VP, as Reagan chose Bush I) or because she’s a recognized expert in a field in which the Presidential candidate is weak (that’s the most common current reason to choose a VP, as Bush II chose Cheney and Obama chose Biden); it’s because McCain HAD to prove that he wanted to leave a legacy that was acceptable to his conservative base.
Reagan was about 2 years younger than McCain when elected. And in spite of how popular he was and remains, I get the impression that people suspect he faded a lot during his second term, and you shouldn’t think for a moment that the Republicans want the Democrats to be using THAT against them.
As for handing over the reins… Um, if he hated the idea, he wouldn’t have nominated her for VP. The VP is the only reliable place to gain experience for the presidency, and it’s the most reliable way to launch a bid for it. And even if McCain decides not to retire, and even if the party decides to back him (which seems to me like it would be foolish), he still has to hand over power after 8 years — and, again, that power usually goes to the VP.
I definitely didn’t say that Palin was a shoo-in to win; I just said that McCain picked her as his intended successor.
But I think judging her based on what you’ve seen is premature. Take a look at her gubernatorial campaign (some of the debates are on youtube); it’s pretty clear that her weakness in this campaign was a matter of bad preparation, not of stupidity. She won her previous campaigns while running against her own party establishment AND against the opposing party. That’s not easy.
Thank you, Phil. I appreciate that, and I do try to analyze without being overly caught up in partisan fervor. It’s easy for me to act like a sports fan cheering on the home team, but it’s usually neither practical nor prudent.
This is an odd thing to say in two respects.
First, you have no reason to think you understand what Republicans or pro-lifers want.
Second, you assume that McCain himself is heading in a direction that the “full stop” people don’t like. Perhaps he’s not as aggressive as they want to be; but he’s clearly heading in the right direction, and Palin is headed there a bit faster.
An analogy might be that pro-lifers think we’re on a bus heading off the edge of a cliff. A vote to slow the bus down isn’t good enough, and a responsible single-issue pro-lifer would probably not vote. But a vote to stop the bus is good enough; a vote to turn the bus around and drive slowly away is good enough. Yes, we might want to drive FAST the other direction, but if the only politically plausible choice is to stop… That’s good enough.
Why not?
-Wm
Vladimir on 03 Nov 2008 at 5:45 pm #
britphil,
It is not as difficult as you and the individual’s and even the denominations you mentioned above make it out to be in understanding the biblical authors and God’s social order.
You and those afore mentioned make it plain that you don’t understand the biblical text – esp. St Paul.
I didn’t say anything about hell – you did. But, if an apostate is disobedient/rebellious against God – not me, then you can make of it what you will (and I’m convinced now you’ll do just that).
Vladimir
Vladimir on 03 Nov 2008 at 6:56 pm #
britphil,
“There are certain adherents (though by no means all) within the Anglo-Catholic fraternity which can only be described as “pure camp”, manifesting itself, amongst other things, in the dressing up in layers upon layers of colourful vestments. I can assure you, their flamboyance would not look at all out of place in the gay parade. You may even find that, after the meeting has finished, one or two of the GAFCON bishops might secretly head for the streets to enjoy the party!”
Is this a slight to the signifcance of the vestments of the high church or a loose slander and unfounded defamation of character from you or is it a reference to the fickleness of some in the clergy?
Vladimir
britphil on 04 Nov 2008 at 5:14 am #
Hi William
“But I think judging her based on what you’ve seen is premature. Take a look at her gubernatorial campaign (some of the debates are on youtube); it’s pretty clear that her weakness in this campaign was a matter of bad preparation, not of stupidity.”
Whatever the reason for the weaknesses in her gubernatorial campaign it is still very worrying that she performed so poorly. Why did she fail to prepare for these events? Did she think she could just wing it? Was she complacent? If it was merely a case of time constraints resulting in lack of preparation time, well part of the making of a good President/Vice President is that they perform well when under pressure, therefore the “lack of time” excuse does not wash either.
So why did she prepare so badly? It is a question that needs asking and requires answering if I am to be convinced that she has what it takes to be Vice-President/President-in-waiting.
“it’s because McCain HAD to prove that he wanted to leave a legacy that was acceptable to his conservative base.”
That’s interesting, so it was a convenient decision rather than a correct decision. He appointed her not because she was the best person for the job but merely to appease the baying of the more conservative right?
“Second, you assume that McCain himself is heading in a direction that the “full stop” people don’t like. Perhaps he’s not as aggressive as they want to be; but he’s clearly heading in the right direction, and Palin is headed there a bit faster.”
I still think this is not acceptable. The way some pro-lifers aggressively push a totally anti-abortion line, I find it amazing that they can lower their standards to uncritically vote in a candidate who in certain circumstances is both pro-abortion and pro gay civil union.
In fact the second issue is more worrying than the first for more conservative Repuiblicans. With regard to the pro civil rights for gay couples in what way exactly is McCain “going in the right direction”. Please enlighten me.
“A vote to slow the bus down isn’t good enough, and a responsible single-issue pro-lifer would probably not vote.”
This is what I would hope and expect from responsible single issue voters, however I still think they will vote in order to try and stop Obama.
“An analogy might be that pro-lifers think we’re on a bus heading off the edge of a cliff.”
I think it is a clever analogy, although I think we may find today that the bus which American voters want to stop from plunging down the cliff and to turn around is the Republican driven bus. They desperately want a change of direction, and they want it now, today!
A vote merely to “stop Obama” is not a good enough argument.
Why not?
Because like so much of the Republican campaign this year it is a purely negative vote, (I have never heard such a negative bunch of people in all my life as the Republicans this time around) borne out of fear-mongering and at times unjustified personal abuse of Obama. What positive things has McCain got to offer? I have hardly heard any! What positive things has he presented to the American public?
To vote to merely “stop Obama” and not because you genuinely believe in McCain, means the Republican party must be in a truly desperate state of affairs.
britphil on 04 Nov 2008 at 5:53 am #
It is not as difficult as you and the individual’s and even the denominations you mentioned above make it out to be in understanding the biblical authors and God’s social order.
You and those afore mentioned make it plain that you don’t understand the biblical text – esp. St Paul.
I didn’t say anything about hell – you did. But, if an apostate is disobedient/rebellious against God – not me, then you can make of it what you will (and I’m convinced now you’ll do just that).
Vladimir
Hi Vladimir
Do I detect a slight softening in the apostate approach. Could it possibly be that some of us apostates may not end up in hell but may be alongside you in heaven after all.
Correct me if I am wrong, but when people accuse an individual or a denomination or series of deniominations of being apostate it is usually the case that they are suggesing that such people are hell, rather than heaven bound.
Where I think you are completely wrong is that my eternal salvation is dependent solely on how I responded to the saving work that Jesus Chjrist undertook in dying for my sins on the cross at Calvary and rising to eternal life. It is my faith in him that will gain me entrance into heaven.
My eternal salvation will NOT be based on my view of the ordination of women. It will be a secondary, minor issue. You may have a tick list of obligations which people have to fulfil in order to be assured of their place in heaven, but I am sure that God’s list is much shorter and less oppressive.
Also my Bible, in the book of Revelation I read of a heavenly vision of eternity being filled with people from every tribe, every race, every tongue and every nation. That means that there will be countless people there who will be “DIFFERENT” from you and me. Heaven will be full of creative diversity and wonderful variety and not dull, bland uniformity.
I do not subscribe to a version of a spiritually ethnically cleansed heaven (ie removing from heaven those who do not believe or subscribe to certain doctrines to the nth degree). That does not mean I am a universalist (I am most definitely not!). I just wonder sometimes Vladimir, what you believe the entrance requirements to heaven actually are?
“Is this a slight to the significance of the vestments of the high church or a loose slander and unfounded defamation of character from you or is it a reference to the fickleness of some in the clergy?”
“Next week about 1,000 senior conservative figures, including Archbishop Akinola and other African and South American leaders, will meet in Jerusalem to discuss the way forward at Gafcon.
The city’s annual gay parade is due to take place at the same time.”
Actually Vladimir, I did not see the need for you to make the comment about the gay parade in Jerusalem taking place a the same time as the Gafcon conference. Why the need to mention it?
With regard to your question, I would contend that there are some in extremely high church settings who do enjoy the “dressing up” and go way over the top with all the ceremonial stuff . It also at times makes it very difficult to minister and witness to tough, working class men who do not get all this “blokes in frocks” stuff, and who prefer to be be ministered to be more “real” guys.
With regard to loose slander and defamation, I did preface my comment by saying that it did by no means apply to all within the high church fraternity. But I will say that there are some of those in the high-church, both on the liberal catholic side and the more traditional conservative Anglo-Catholic side who ,it would not at all be surprising to discover, though it is not admitted openly, that they are gay. That is not slander, that is how it is, and there are many people who would agree with this statement.
My intention was to enlighten people that GAFCON is made up of conservative-minded evangelicals and traditionalist Anglo-Catholics. Within the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics are, I would contend, some “closet” gay people.
For GAFCON to “look the other” way as if this were not an issue, when it is the biggest issue they harp on about is disingenuous to say the least. The fact that it is OK for Gafcon to condone having some silently within their ranks but to castigate others does not wash with me I am afraid.
By the way with regard to robing this is where I stand. The church which I help lead has a policy of minimal robing. Our Team Vicar will robe (in an alb) for sacramental purposes such as communion, baptism etc. The other six members who share the leading/teaching roles do not robe (including three clergy and three lay leaders including myself.)
However, when I am invited to lead worship and/or preach elsewhere in other Anglican or non-Anglican churches I adopt a “when in Rome” approach. If I am going to a church where they are happy for me not to robe, or where they do not themselves robe, I do not robe. When I go to a church where the tradition is to robe, I robe with them, my robes consisting of a very simple black cassock with a white surplice on top and with royal blue Reader’s scarf around my neck. For me, I prefer not to robe out of choice but it is not something which I choose to make an issue of.
“With regard to loose slander and defamation”
By the way Vladimir, with regard to loose slander and defamation, what could be more slanderous than the casual and lazy bandying about of the term apostate which you have been doing fairly regularly of late.
And I still cannot make out where you stand on the apostate issue. You seem to have sympathy with the GAFCON–led Anglicans and it appears that they have suddenly become much less apostate of late in your view. I would still contend though that, being still very much Anglican in practice and nature, (even if they have considered themselves to have broken away from the Anglican communion) they must still, according to your reckoning and terminology, be apostate.
britphil on 04 Nov 2008 at 6:08 am #
I would just like to post these thoughts from Gavin Hewitt, a BBC correspondent who is covering the American election. I think this exderpt is absolutely superb. I guess many of you may disagree.!
“Another man I met said it “would change the face of America”. For him, it would be the moment WHEN THE AMERICAN DREAM HAD MEANING. HE SAID THAT IT WOULDMEAN THAT ANY PERSON, WHATEVER THEIR COLOUR OF BELIEF, COULD MAKE IT TO THE TOP.” (capitalisation is mine for emphasis, not Gavin Hewitt’s)
I asked several people how they would react at the moment they knew that the next president of the United States was a black man. One woman said to me with a smile: “Cry. I will cry. Cry for joy and cry for all that has passed.”
The 72-year-old said he would cry too. Tomorrow night, if victory goes to Obama, there will be a lot of tears and a lot of memories, some painful.
I came away from these conversations struck again as to how momentous this night could be. I met people who remember benches with the words “whites only” on them. Others talked about sit-ins at lunch counters. Others talked about the “Freedom Rides”. All of this is within living memory.
There will be millions of African-Americans tomorrow who will recall the long struggle that has brought them to this point.
How times have changed and how Barack Obama has changed the times. The gangs had no role models and saw no means of escaping their neighbourhood. Obama, from the outset, did not want to define himself as a black candidate. Part of his appeal was that he said there was no black or white or Hispanic, only Americans.
The past two times that I have heard Michelle Obama, she has told a story. She talks of meeting an 80-year-old on the rope line who says to her: “I never thought I would live to see the day.” On neither occasion does she finish the thought. She does not have to. Everyone listening knows that the man was saying that he never thought he’d live to see a black man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
So, a victory for Obama on Tuesday evening would lead to huge celebrations – but to reflection, too, on the struggle that brought Americans to the point that they would vote for an African-American.
Wm Tanksley on 04 Nov 2008 at 10:28 am #
Wow, you must REALLY hate Palin… I tell you that her gubernatorial campaign was extremely strong, and you choose to “read” that as saying that it was weak.
I’m ending this particular discussion; you’re ignoring me.
It looks like he appointed her in order to set his legacy. I suppose you can bay about that if you want.
You refuse to listen to my description of my values; what goes on as a consequence is not best described as “thinking”. You may have an opinion, but you have it only because you value it for its own sake, not because you reached it by reason.
This is exactly the character-empty, totally negative campaign that we’ve gotten all this election cycle from all the news media and Democratic politicians. Before the election started, they started their press claiming that the Republicans were going to run an impossibly negative campaign, were going to falsify votes on electronic machines, were going to lie, were going to suppress the votes of poor people, and so on. Long before the campaigns started the dirty campaigning started.
We’re supposed to conclude that McCain is a bad person because we’re told that the entire Republican party is full of bad people, and McCain is just one of them.
I’m sorry to hear that. I found this election to be unusually positive, in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear. Obama and McCain are collegial and gentlemanly. Both talk about the negatives of electing the other, but that’s perfectly reasonable.
I have to point out that you haven’t listened for any, and when I listed them in my post above you ignored it.
For example: Obama’s talked about cooperation, but has only done it once (the Coburn-Obama bill). McCain’s built his entire career on cooperating, even to his party’s immediate detriment (gang of 14, immigration reform).
BTW, the immigration reform that Obama praises on his website was in the last McCain bill; Obama proposed and passed a poison-pill amendment which helped to kill it. (It’s not clear that it would have passed anyhow, but he could have HELPED rather than hurt it.)
Think about that. What it means is that the voter who does that believes that Obama is in a truly desperate state of affairs. Projecting that onto the Republican party is senseless.
-Wm
Vladimir on 04 Nov 2008 at 10:43 am #
britphil,
You continue to evade my direct questions with your pia rhetorica!
If you and those I mentioned before think it is a slight – slight to God to make a mockery of HIS revealed will then that is and will continue to be your accountability. But don’t justify your flakiness and ill concieved notions with propositional truth written, recorded and displayed for any and all to see. Where is that pray tell! In the Bible, you see?
Vladimir
Vladimir on 04 Nov 2008 at 10:48 am #
britphil,
You wrote:
“I apologise profusely…I should have got it right first time and didn’t! It should have read…”
I agree. From a supposedly educated man and cleric and believer and assumed leader this *constant grating* has come to an end as far as I’m concerned.
BTW, perhaps an orange or red suited evangelical would be less distracting than the “blokes in frocks” attire! Weeee! Look at me and disregard the message.
Vladimir
britphil on 04 Nov 2008 at 10:57 am #
William
I take your point about the gubernatorial campaign but you carefully avoided making any further reference to her lack of preparation, which to me is a very serious weakness in someone who is wishing to be Vice President of her country. In fact it would be an alarming trait. You appear to view this as a minor flaw, I prefer to view it as rather more serious than that because if you fail to prepare, you are preparing and deserving to fail.
I do not “REALLY hate” Palin. I do not hate Palin at all. Please take care to temper your language and do not insinuate things that are untrue.
At times I have actually felt sorry for Sarah because I feel she is VERY much out of her depth. I simply do not think she possesses the necessary attributes to be the Vice President of the USA and I definitely do not think she has what it takes to “lead the free world” I guess you have less exacting standards than I do.
“ I’m sorry to hear that. I found this election to be unusually positive, in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear. Both talk about the negatives of electing the other, but that’s perfectly reasonable.”
I find your first sentence a bit confusing. What is meant by “in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear.”
“Obama and McCain are collegial and gentlemanly.” Why has this not been said earlier. You are the first Republican on this, or any other site who I have heard say this. Why does it almost have to be admitted thorugh gritted teeth? You appear to critcise me for comments but said absolutely nothing when Vladimir was saying some deeply offensive stuff about Obama. Why did you keep so quiet if you think he Obama “a collegial and gentlemanly guy”, yet be extremely critical of me . And Vladimir, if you are watching could you come in and refute William’s view that Obaba is a collegial and gentlemany man in the strongest possible terms, as you have done whenever I have tried to make this point!
Contrary to assumptions, I actually admire McCain in many respects. When there were some vicious comments from the floor about Obama during some Republican campaign rallies that he came out and said that Obama was a good man, which I thoughtn was courageous. Why has it taken so long for someone to come out and say he is dignified, gentlemany and collegial.
I couldn’t agree more that they can point out the negatives in each other’s campaigns so long as they focus more on the positives in their own.
And for the record, yes I greatly admire McCains’s anti-rendition and anti-Guantanamo Bay stance, though it was a long time in coming from the Republican side of the fence! Yes I admire his totally different take on the war in Iraq! Yes I respect and admire that he is a maverick and willing to take on the hawks in the current Bush administration.
What I do question most of all thoughy is his judgement. I have to question his judgement, particularly in the choice of his of running mate, who has often been in the headlines more than he has, and mostly for many of the wrong reasons. Did he not foresee that before he chose her?
In the long run when all the dust has settled, it will probably be agreed that it was John McCain’s poor judgement calls in the heat of the election battle that has probably cost him this election campaign. He took a huge gamble and it doesn’t look as though is going to pay off.
I may be wrong. We shall see over the coming hours.
britphil on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:02 am #
“orange or red”
That would make a nice refreshing change from the desperately dull grey, sombre funereal black or oh so nice and sensible dark blue booted and suited evangelical preacher!
By the way when I teach, I normally just wear a shirt and tie, (forget the suit) and occasionally, shock horror…no tie at all.
Whee…look at me
minnowspeaks on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:03 am #
Well Brit I will write you a private response but I think I have found my teeth.
@Vladimir # 49 “Such a sort as Obama…would even have the audacity to run” The implied prejudice is frightening, Vladimir. Your refusal to answer is taken as confirmation.
Brit–from there until #104 much of your discussion with V was about Church matters I do not presume to understand.
# 104 “Usama, oops. Obama…” Grow up.
#71 Rediculous, to put it ever so harshly. Our “offerings” (or rather lack of) have nothing to do with calling taxes charity. That is simply balderdash! Furthermore, I am not one to confuse the government with the Church or visa versa.
# 74 Oops. “Cannot be peturbed” was Vladimir. Many apologies WmT.
“Just such sort of people” Could you possible mean the marginalized, discounted, “least of these”? I have been “helped” by such as you and will never choose to be again.
Originally Brit I did not engage with Vladimir because I am weary of participating in the ugliness of political discourse and hope that by not giving such the time of day it will become bored and go harrass someone else.
britphil on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:04 am #
By the way Vladimir
At least I do apologise from time to time.
I have yet to see you have the humility or grace to do so even once.
I get the impression that you rarely feel the need to do so.
britphil on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:10 am #
Hi Minnow
Thanks very much for your response.
I guessed it was the case that you were wisely deciding not to join the fray.
There is part of me which secretly hopes and yearns for a McCain victory because I dread to think what the P&P blogosphere will be like if, as appears may be the case, Obama wins the day!
We’ll never hear the end of it!
I look forward to hearing from you.
PS You can take your teeth out again now if you wish!!
Vladimir on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:34 am #
Minnowspeaks wrote:
“Well Brit I will write you a private response but I think I have found my teeth.
@Vladimir # 49 “Such a sort as Obama…would even have the audacity to run” The implied prejudice is frightening, Vladimir. Your refusal to answer is taken as confirmation.
Brit–from there until #104 much of your discussion with V was about Church matters I do not presume to understand.
# 104 “Usama, oops. Obama…” Grow up….
# 74 …. “Cannot be peturbed” was Vladimir….
“Just such sort of people” Could you possible mean the marginalized, discounted, “least of these”? I have been “helped” by such as you and will never choose to be again.
Originally Brit I did not engage with Vladimir because I am weary of participating in the ugliness of political discourse and hope that by not giving such the time of day it will become bored and go harrass someone else.”
Well, since you have already revealed your fangs and bitten, I’ll extend to you the courtesy of biding you farewell, not at you wish, but because of my good sense.
Vladimir
Vladimir on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:38 am #
britphil,
You wrote:
“By the way Vladimir
At least I do apologise from time to time.
I have yet to see you have the humility or grace to do so even once.
I get the impression that you rarely feel the need to do so.”
Actually, I try not to put myself in such a posture to begin with. I think they call it foresight. Let me dispel your presumption, I need Christ for various reasons – and that not in vain.
Vladimir
Vladimir on 04 Nov 2008 at 11:51 am #
britphil,
“Whee…look at me.”
No, lets not. (1 Cor 15:33f; 1 Cor 14:36f).
Vladimir
Wm Tanksley on 04 Nov 2008 at 12:24 pm #
Your opinions on this are hardly binding on anyone else, since they’re backed only by your personal desire to believe them. It’s not immoral to vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on one issue. It’s not immoral to single-issue vote (although you’d better pick that issue carefully). It’s definitely not immoral to get fed up with “holding your nose and voting”, but that doesn’t make it right.
This time we get to choose between a moderate pro-life candidate and a radically pro-abortion one (so radical on this issue that he’s repeatedly spoken and voted against born-alive protections).
That’s called “hyperbole” — by which I mean your accusation in this case. Yes, both candidates have been called HORRIBLE things, and accused of horrors that they are not in any way guilty of. Neither of them have had anything happen that hasn’t happened to every other campaigner in a national race.
Given your accusations here, you’re clearly not familiar with any actual data on giving (click on the link for an article that presents the numeric results).
We should be ashamed of our giving, personal spending, and foolish debt. But conservatives need not lead the shame parade.
I understand why you’d think that; Obama presents himself as a much calmer, more relaxed person. That does indeed look like a person who’s not desperately focussed on the here-and-now, and I see why you’d want to assume that he’s therefore focussed on the future.
Unfortunately, there’s no evidence for that assumption; Obama’s spent his career climbing the ladder, not accomplishing change. Maybe he does have a vision; if so, his vision starts at the presidency rather than anywhere short of it.
McCain has a vision too, and you can see him work for it every year for the past 26 years.
Nor did they appear parodied in SNL skits in “desperate” attempts to tarnish their images. They did, of course, appear on other entertainment venues, famously on Oprah’s show.
No, it shouldn’t be hard to improve on that record. All one needs to do is finish ONE thing that they started, and they’ll massively improve on Bush’s and Pelosi’s legacy. Unfortunately, one of those will still be in a position of power after this election.
Wm Tanksley on 04 Nov 2008 at 2:07 pm #
Minnowspeaks, I’m not contradicting your numbers; you called for no conclusions, so I’m not contradicting those, either.
There are a number of posts above that claim that failing to support higher taxes that purport to take care of the poor is a failure of charity. I say it’s not a failure of charity, but rather a call for true charity; charity that begins because Christ has changed your heart. Charity, also, that does not play from a book of rules, and therefore cannot be subverted by scoundrels who abuse those rules.
It’s not clear to me that charity can have free play when the government takes such a large part of incomes. Christians must still be responsible givers, but one cannot expect the same societal level of free charity when there’s such a large measure of forced “giving”.
Wm Tanksley on 04 Nov 2008 at 3:24 pm #
I see your point; I didn’t notice you were talking about it because I don’t see it as a “trait” at all, but rather a problem caused by a lack of time to prepare. It’s true that Palin hadn’t been grooming herself for national office… But that’s never been a disqualifier.
I insinuated nothing… I clearly and directly stated that your attitude toward Palin was one of hate. This manifested itself in ignoring positive evidence and reading the worst possible interpretations into negative behaviors.
For example, you called “lack of preparation” a “trait”, as though it were in the same category as a bad temper or poor judgment in companions. Lack of preparation is a result of paying attention to something else. Ignorance of national affairs is curable; stupidity is not.
Palin is not stupid. All who know her, including her Alaskan political opponents, admit that. Any who watched her Alaskan debates, or who saw the results of her policy changes in Alaska, have to admit that. Or for that matter, anyone who realizes that she won while openly running against her own party’s establishment, and then delivering what she campaigned on.
I don’t blame you for not understanding that… I had to think hard to remember what I meant. I apologize for the vagueness, and thank you for asking rather than assuming the worst (which would have been only reasonable!).
My point is that both candidates have huge negatives in their past, and both have been courteous and generous, at least at the top level of the campaign, in calling the other on it, and both have generally immediately smacked down on members of their party who were less than gracious (or who have gone off the deep end into lies).
This is the first time here that the false claim has been made that this election is terrible and nasty. And I don’t grit my teeth in saying it; I simply state the obvious. It’s like saying that Obama is in favor of Hope and Change: true, but hardly a presidential platform.
I welcome refutation, but I didn’t see any disagreement on this point. I take no responsibility to do your job in defending your candidate, although I’ve gladly spoken against ridiculous implausibilities from my own side.
Nope, no need. Go ahead and point out negatives! McCain’s positives are well known; Obama’s positives are well-promoted. That leaves Obama’s and McCain’s negatives to be brought to light, and that won’t be done at all unless the other side does it. And both did; they both spent amazing sums on revealing the negatives of the other side.
You’re absolutely right that she’s been in the headlines for the wrong reasons: the media has been desperately seeking to vilify and discredit her. Thankfully, it’s now settled that the only accusation against her is baseless (even the politically run inquiry against her admitted that she’d done nothing wrong, and the administrative inquiry cleared her completely); and as I pointed out earlier, the accusations of stupidity are poorly thought out.
I’m surprised that you’d base your entire case against McCain on this one matter, though, especially given that I’ve rebutted your case previously (I don’t claim to have refuted it).
Obama himself didn’t put any weight on trying to claim Palin was an idiot; he leaned much harder on claiming that McCain was a third Bush term (false). More credibly, he claimed that McCain completely fumbled the bailout crisis (true), and expanded on that to claim he’d fumble any crisis (false, given his history).
No, the results of the election won’t tell us whether Palin was a good choice; contra your claim, there are many possible reasons to accept Obama or reject McCain.
Palin will be running again regardless of the results. Next time she won’t be getting any slack from me — she knows the stakes now, and that national issues are profoundly as deep as local ones.
-Wm
britphil on 05 Nov 2008 at 6:00 am #
“I see your point; I didn’t notice you were talking about it because I don’t see it as a “trait” at all, but rather a problem caused by a lack of time to prepare. It’s true that Palin hadn’t been grooming herself for national office… But that’s never been a disqualifier.”
I believe that preparation is essential for a candidate for Vice-Presidency. There may be times when she has to think on the spot and wing it with little time for preparation, and Sarah Palin has at times shown that when placed in such a position she has a tendency to be found wanting.
“I do not “REALLY hate” Palin. I do not hate Palin at all. Please take care to temper your language and do not insinuate things that are untrue.
I insinuated nothing… I clearly and directly stated that your attitude toward Palin was one of hate.”
I am appalled by this statement. I do not hate Sarah Palin, that is simply untrue! I simply feel that she was an unsuitable candidate to run for Vice-President of Unoted States of America. Most other political commentators feel th same and were perplexed that he chose her ahead of, say, Joe Lieberman for example.
“For example, you called “lack of preparation” a “trait”, as though it were in the same category as a bad temper or poor judgment in companions. Lack of preparation is a result of paying attention to something else. Ignorance of national fairs is curable; stupidity is not.”
Lack of preparation William is actually an inability to prioritise as a result of paying inordinate amounts of attention to relatively unimportant matters. It DOES involve a poor judgement call. Thinking that you can wing it without proper preparation is clearly poor judgement as does a clear inability to decide as to what really matters when trying to win an election campaign. Ignorance of national affairs may be “curable” but when you are running for Vice President of your country it is pretty worrying if you show ignorance of national affairs. It is not far off being the unforgiveable political sin!
“Palin is not stupid. All who know her, including her Alaskan political opponents, admit that. Any who watched her Alaskan debates, or who saw the results of her policy changes in Alaska, have to admit that. Or for that matter, anyone who realizes that she won while openly running against her own party’s establishment, and then delivering what she campaigned on.”
Just one problem William, Alaska is in America but Alaska is not America! I admire her for taking on some of the corporate moguls in Alaska but she did not appear to effectively transfer this toughness to tackle the real issues onto the national stage. What is more, the majority of the American people did not believe she had this ability either.
“ I’m sorry to hear that. I found this election to be unusually positive, in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear. Both talk about the negatives of electing the other, but that’s perfectly reasonable.”
I find your first sentence a bit confusing. What is meant by “in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear.”
I don’t blame you for not understanding that… I had to think hard to remember what I meant. I apologize for the vagueness, and thank you for asking rather than assuming the worst (which would have been only reasonable!).
My point is that both candidates have huge negatives in their past, and both have been courteous and generous, at least at the top level of the campaign, in calling the other on it, and both have generally immediately smacked down on members of their party who were less than gracious (or who have gone off the deep end into lies).
We may be on more common ground here William. I watched both John McCain’ concession speech and Barack Obama’s acceptance speech. Both were classic speeches of their kind. McCain was utterly gracious and dignified in defeat. It almost felt as if the real John McCain had returned. I don’t know whether you agree William, but I feel that what may have cost McCain the election was the Republican party machine/advisors/strategists/ surrounding him. They appeared to try to turn him into some form of “party machine/robot” rather than allowing him to be himself, such as he was in his speech last night. Apparently Barack Obama has spoken to him and said that he wants to sit down and talk with him. For me I would hope that Obama woild consider giving him a role to bring an end to the Guantanamo Bay sort of stuff, where I think he would genuinely excel as a statesman who gets things done..
“Obama and McCain are collegial and gentlemanly.”
Last night proved this beyond any possible doubt. History may prove that behind the rhetoric, this may have been a election fought between two deeply honourable, good and decent men.
“And both did; they both spent amazing sums on revealing the negatives of the other side.”
My over-arching question in response to this is – “Is this really money well spent?” Given the result of the election it could be argued that for the Obama team it was, but for the McCain team it most definitely wasn’t!
“More credibly, he claimed that McCain completely fumbled the bailout crisis (true)”
If I may say so William this was part of a self-induced double whammy for McCain which I believe probably cost him the election. Shortly before the economy nosedived McCain made a campaign speech in Florida stating the American economy was in a relatively sound shape. Is it any wonder that folk began to seriously question his judgement and credibility on economic matters when he got this judgement call so terribly wrong. He single-handedly undid all the good work he had done to put himself out adead in in the polls.
If it were possible , he then compounded this by suspending his campaign in an attempt to sort out the crisis. He clearly saw this as an opportunity to prove to the nation that he had what it took to stop the rot (he clearly didn’t!)and that he was the man to turn to in a crisis.(he clearly wasn’t!) . His intervention was totally ineffectual and did not make one iota of a difference. In fact, if anything the situation got significantly worse, with McCain weatching on helplessly from the sidelines.
It is no coincidence whatsoever that McCain’s “fumbling” of the bailout crisis (I would put it stronger than mere fumbling, complete botch up springs to mind!) preceded a sharp drop in McCain’s poll ratings and a massive surge in Obama’s! And it was all of his own making. Nobody else’s.
“Palin will be running again regardless of the results. Next time she won’t be getting any slack from me — she knows the stakes now, and that national issues are profoundly as deep as local ones.”
I am sure she will and hopefully this will have been a steep and beneficial learning curve. However I do not think she will run unopposed for the Republican nomination. In fac,t I don’t even think she will be the Republican candidate in 2012. I think she appeals far too much to to the more conservative base of the party, but completely switched off the centre ground/independent voters the Republicans need to win if they are to mount a serious challenge for the Presidency in 2012.
I’m not sure whether Condoleeza Rice will be eligible in 2012, but if she is, along with several others who may emerge would probably make a stronger, far more rounded Republican candidate for the Presidency in four years time.
Phil
Words « Minnowspeaks Weblog on 05 Nov 2008 at 8:18 am #
[...] is somewhat of an unusual post. It is basically my response to comments directed at me on the Parchment and Pen blog. I asked the writer (BritPhil) if I could use his comments in this post, explaining that I [...]
minnowspeaks on 05 Nov 2008 at 8:33 am #
# 134–perhaps I misread what you wrote or took the implication to far. I did not think you were arguing my numbers. I only took what you said to mean that we can let ourselves off the hook because we pay such high taxes. To that I say rediculous. Our mandate from scripture to bless (give) because we have been blessed is not (in my opinion) connected to amounts, wealth, etc. It is connected to need. If I have two shoes and you have none I give. If I have two potatoes and you have none. If we both have none tomorrow we have none together.
britphil on 05 Nov 2008 at 8:39 am #
I hope you don’t mind me saying so but it has gone a bit quiet Stateside on the P&P site.
I know it is only round about 8.20am but there are usually one or two up and blogging by now.
I take it you are all sleeping off your late night after watch last night’s momentous events unfold.
I was thinking of beginning my blog with a hearty rendition of “Oh what a beautiful mornin’, oh what a beautiful day!”. , but thankfully I thought better of it!
Having had a few hours to reflect, can I just say that I think Americans can be proud of themselves for the dignified manner in which thywe conducted themselves during the election yesterday, both during the both the voting process itself and in aftermath of the results. I though it was truly superb.
If I could bottle up just a bit of the 75% or so turnout and pour it out over our electorate in two years time I would. We will be lucky if we get a 40% national turnout,with the under 25s probably barely registering any interest whatsoever.
I would also say that John McCain’s concession speech was superb in its graciousness and magisterial in its dignity. If only he had not allowed himself to be so tightly and rigidly fashioned by the PR gurus within the Republican party campaign teanm during the run up to the vote the outcome could well have been entirely different.
I for one am someone who hopes very much that when Obama meets with McCain, Obama might find some conciliatory role for McCain in a new more inclusive administration which is suited to McCain’s considerable skills. His type of statesmanship is sorely needed. I still maintain that he made a mistake in selecting Sarah Palin. I think that either Joe Lieberman or Mitt Romney would have been preferable candidates. I also think he made some very poor judgement calls with regard to the economic crisis. He also became less and less “himself” as the campaign wore on and hopefully the true John McCain will emerge once more over the coming days now he has been released from the party shackles which have had so tight hold of him in recent days.
Barack Obama’s acceptance speech was equally tremendous in its inspiration and eloquence He has received one of the worst legacies that any incumbent could face, but I for one will be praying that God would guide Him as he seeks to steer America, and with it the rest of the world, back on the path to financial stability and economic prosperity.
Every politician I have heard speak, both Republican and Democrat , (and I stayed up until 5.30am in order to cach both speeches) has praised Obama’s election campaign as one of the best that has ever been mounted. If he can bring such energy, dignity, drive and efficiency to the White House I feel that America, and indeed the world may be a far better place for it.
britphil on 05 Nov 2008 at 9:55 am #
Hmmmm
Still eerily and spookily quiet over there on P&P!
It’s now 10am!
Where are all you guys?
You haven’t declared a day of mourning by any chance have you?
You should follow Kenya’s example. They are having a public holiday tomorrow! Now that should be some party!
Wm Tanksley on 05 Nov 2008 at 11:04 am #
britphil,
I entirely agree with your last post! (What a pleasant change!) Except for one detail: no, we won’t have a national holiday; that’s reserved for Inauguration Day. Today we allow a little bit of relaxation to settle in.
I’m also happy that the resolution was so clear; we don’t have to pick through undervotes or overvotes or hanging chads…
Or pick out political trends…
Whew. It’s over; time to relax, and for some of us to lick our wounds.
The only reason I’m here at all is that I had to see how some close local votes were going. Particularly sad for me is that CA Prop 4 failed; we want to kill babies SO much we’ll take parental consent out of the loop, even when we’re given a law with plenty of safeguards. And then a HUGE bond passed; as if we’re going to be able to get that much in loans when our governor is begging the feds to bail us out (and worse, it’s for a completely new transit system, totally new technology for us; I’ll probably not live to see it running).
Wm Tanksley on 05 Nov 2008 at 11:06 am #
Oh, and one more thing — I’m relaxing today, so I may or may not respond to your (britphil’s) message to me. I’ll read it over, I’ve got it marked in Google Reader. I don’t know if I’ll reply any more; it looks like we’re arguing in circles.
britphil on 05 Nov 2008 at 11:48 am #
Hi William
Thanks for your comments.
Yes I think we are all relaxing today after all that pent up pre-election energy.
Who knows, maybe these two collegial intelligent guys might begin to usher in a slighlty more concensual political atmosphere in the near future. We can but hope and dream! Do we really all have to wait until January 20 before George Bush packs up and leaves the White House. Can someone please explain to me what that is all about? Here in the UK, the new Prime Minister is moving into 10 Downing Street before the previous one has even had time to have his breakfast on the morning after the nigfht before!
Although, on the plus side, it gives Obama a bit of breathing space to get his team together and plan some strategy for tackling some of their bigger issues that will face him come early 2009!
“Oh, and one more thing — I’m relaxing today, so I may or may not respond to your (britphil’s) message to me. I’ll read it over, I’ve got it marked in Google Reader. I don’t know if I’ll reply any more; it looks like we’re arguing in circles.”
William, on reflection I ‘d give it a miss and carry on relaxing for a while longer!…We may find ourselves arguiing again and it’s a bit too soon for that don’t you think!
Best regards
Phil
PS So far today I’ve escaped censure from Vladimir! I’m getting worried…something must be afoot!
Wm Tanksley on 06 Nov 2008 at 7:47 pm #
But this raises the question of what sort of preparation is essential. There are many kinds; Palin was well-prepared by her work background for energy and executive issues (in the latter she was the most prepared candidate), while on national politics she had a mere two days of preparation before her first speech, and it only got busier after that.
Yes, at times that happens; at other times it doesn’t; she did well enough in the debate, nearly as well as McCain or Obama, and definitely at least as well as Biden.
I do sympathize with one conclusion; it’s reasonable that you should start with some initial suspicion of her competence and wait to be shown that the suspicion is unreasonable; the campaign did not attempt to show that except when forced to. I’ll skip speculating on why they failed and whose fault that it; that’s past. The result is clear; it’s not your job to look up past debates made by someone you find distasteful in order to see whether they’re competent when given reasonable time to prepare; it’s that person’s job to prove it to YOU. I agree with you on that, even if I don’t match your conclusion (since I did take the time to look up her debates).
Palin will have another opportunity to change people’s minds in the next election; if she doesn’t run a campaign which offers people the evidence they truly need to make this
Jaw drop… Well, a little thought would clear THAT right up. Lieberman is a credit to his office, but he’s a loyal Democrat on every issue but the Iraq war, and furthermore brings nothing to the ticket that McCain doesn’t already have in spades. Lieberman was a decent pick for Gore, as he provided substantial experience (although I think he would have done better with an executive pick).
Meanwhile, many people are noting that the people who know Sarah don’t share the “political commentators” low opinion of her — friends and enemies alike agree that she’s sharp and competent.
I’m not sure where you pull that definition from. Lack of preparation means you were busy doing something else. Governing Alaska, for example, or working as a community organizer.
It’s hard to tell that — but I can state that the campaign failed to make any kind of case for her. They allowed her to draw crowds… But she didn’t make any case for herself. (I’m not blaming anyone specific, simply noting a historical fact.)
Oh, I agree. It was painful to watch his last few campaign speeches — he was obviously hurting when he gave his concession speech (probably more from exhaustion than disappointment, I speculate), but if you heard any of his last campaign speeches he sounded strong but was talking nonsense.
(For example, he claimed that Obama was going to give the bailout money to Wall Street, but he (McCain) was going to give it to Main Street. Huh? What?)
I’m not too sure what you mean, but I suspect that may be the case. I have to lay the ultimate responsibility for McCain’s campaign at McCain’s feet, though, with all due respect; and he nobly took all the responsibility.
I’ve speculated that Palin’s problem was overconstraint and overcoaching; we’ll find out in two years and four years whether that’s correct.
That’s a good point; there are many points where the two agree on the action, and McCain’s experience, connections, and credibility would be immensely helpful. OTOH, I don’t expect a cabinet appointment, and hope that if one is offered McCain gracefully turns it down.
Grin. I get your point, but I don’t think that proves what you want — it proves that NO money spent on a losing campaign is money well spent.
I like your Freudian typo there: “adead in the polls”.
There’s no doubt that Obama’s campaign was able to play that well against him. He may have been correct, but he showed no foresight.
I disagree. His mistake was offering to suspend his campaign, and then not doing it.
Let’s add “and Obama”.
We’ll see — my point is that she’ll run, and have her chance to prove herself out from under someone else’s wing and with time up front to study. She’s no Quayle, YET, although there’s time for her to build up a library of Quayleisms.
-Wm
joelpj on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:30 am #
Re: bar stool economics
I found a well thought out refutation here