I understand that there is concern among some Americans that a Mormon President of the United States would be influenced by his beliefs.
Well, I can think of one of the teachings of the LDS Church that would influence any devout Mormon who happened to become President of the United States and would affect how he governed. I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
When, on Inauguration Day, that person raised his hand and vowed, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Well, I would be pretty confident that he would take that vow seriously.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What makes you think that a Mormon president would take that vow more seriously than a non-Mormon president?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, I can think of one of the teachings of the LDS Church that would influence any devout Mormon who happened to become President of the United States and would affect how he governed. I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
And I can think of one promise that every faithful Temple worthy Mormon has made that ought to take priority over defending the US constitution. While I don't think those two are likely to come into conflict, I can see why it would create a sincere cause for concern for a lot of people.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I, um, suggest you look into the ethics track record of LDS legislators and administrators in Utah government.
Which is not to say it's particularly BAD, compared to the average state.
It's not particularly good.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
Would you apply this same reasoning to a Mormon democrat, say Harry Reid for example?
I'm pretty sure that the particular "belief" you are referring to is not scriptural and not official doctrine so I think it would be more than a little presumptuous to assume that because a candidate is Mormon he shares your particular beliefs about the constitution.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
He hasn't demonstrated that he places any particular value on honesty so far.
I don't want an overtly religious president. I don't want Pat Robertson, or his Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, or Hindu counterpart to be president. While Romney may or may not be very devout, I haven't seen any evidence that he is a zealot.
Finally, I wasn't aware that the LDS Church put any particular emphasis on the US Constitution until I did a search following your comment.
I wasn't concerned about a Mormon president, but now I am. My concern-o-meter moves from a 1 to a 2 on a scale of 1 to 100. I don't like the idea that the president could become convinced that he has to "save" the constitution because it's "hanging by a thread". Romney doesn't appear to be that type of guy, but it does help me understand why some might be nervous about a Mormon president.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
You know it's quite possible for two different people to agree that a document is sacred but completely disagree about what the document actually says.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
You know it's quite possible for two different people to agree that a document is sacred but completely disagree about what the document actually says.
Or even what it means to "preserve, protect, and defend" that document.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm a Christian and I think it would honestly be better to have an Agnostic in office. Either that, or just have it so that the President is forbidden to talk about religion in public.
I mean, just today I saw the President using Jesus as an excuse to raise taxes. Seriously, I'm sure our savior would be proud.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See? Depending on what they were to be used for, I think that Jesus would approve. Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or even what it means to "preserve, protect, and defend" that document.
Clearly it means to engrave it on metal plates and hide it up in the earth.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Can we bury you with it?
Seriously.....and you claim to wonder WHY people think you are a troll? You ARE one.
Just not a particularly good one.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Well, I can think of one of the teachings of the LDS Church that would influence any devout Mormon who happened to become President of the United States and would affect how he governed. I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
And I can think of one promise that every faithful Temple worthy Mormon has made that ought to take priority over defending the US constitution. While I don't think those two are likely to come into conflict, I can see why it would create a sincere cause for concern for a lot of people.
I don't at all think that those two imperatives would come into conflict with each other. At any rate, the POTUS would be not be breaking that personal promise by fulfilling his sworn duty to defend the constitution to the best of his understanding and abilities.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
afr,
Do you mean that there is a conflict but events would be very unlikely to bring them together, sparking the conflict? Or that the two imperatives don't challenge one another, either hypothetically or in reality?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Well, I can think of one of the teachings of the LDS Church that would influence any devout Mormon who happened to become President of the United States and would affect how he governed. I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
And I can think of one promise that every faithful Temple worthy Mormon has made that ought to take priority over defending the US constitution. While I don't think those two are likely to come into conflict, I can see why it would create a sincere cause for concern for a lot of people.
I don't at all think that those two imperatives would come into conflict with each other. At any rate, the POTUS would be not be breaking that personal promise by fulfilling his sworn duty to defend the constitution to the best of his understanding and abilities.
Tell me which promise you're talking about?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I’m talking about our beliefs about the Constitution of the United States.
You know it's quite possible for two different people to agree that a document is sacred but completely disagree about what the document actually says.
i LOL'd.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: afr,
Do you mean that there is a conflict but events would be very unlikely to bring them together, sparking the conflict? Or that the two imperatives don't challenge one another, either hypothetically or in reality?
I don't think they challenge one another.
In the course of fulfilling his job as POTUS, Romney would not be in conflict with temple matters. That's true for the vast majority of church members holding a temple recommend, IMO. We're not a bunch of sleeper agents waiting for activation.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:We're not a bunch of sleeper agents waiting for activation.
I'm one who has always held sympathetic tendencies with the LDS church, but I have to ask: As these sacred promises are completely private and secret, how would a non-member know this?
I'm not going to vote for Romney based on a whole bunch of unrelated issues, but if I was undecided I have to admit that this might be troubling for me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I imagine they're all out there on the Interwebs and anyone who really wants to know what they are has long since become familiar with them. I can't speak for non-members, but I don't find them ominous. In fact, I find them quite ordinary and anti-climactic. Very much in line with everyday church teachings, stuff included in Sunday meeting lessons.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I take it this is one of those things you're not even allowed to talk about 'cos it's supposed to be a secret sacred thing or whatever
well, okay, that sucks. :/ can someone just point me to an obviously completely unrelated everyday church teaching it would be in line with which would at least give me an idea of which promise we are talking about?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Maybe my google-fu is weak, but I couldn't find any specific references to what vows/promises that an LDS member makes in a quick 5 minute googling, which is frankly about as much time as I care to spend looking .
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Hmm. The concept of home teaching, perhaps? Members in a congregation watching over each other and being ready to provide comfort and service in whatever way is needed, from the very practical to the spiritual. Offering time, talents, and resources to support and strengthen another family in their needs.
ETA: I do have a fair number of co-workers who are LDS, and we've spent the odd minute discussing things like whether a President Romney would receive an assignment as a home teacher, and what it would be like to have the POTUS as your home teacher. Or to be the home teacher assigned to the Romneys.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I will say that the original post made me less likely to be comfortable with a Mormon president rather than more comfortable with it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Maybe my google-fu is weak, but I couldn't find any specific references to what vows/promises that an LDS member makes in a quick 5 minute googling, which is frankly about as much time as I care to spend looking .
When an LDS person receives their temple endowment, they promise to consecrate their time, talents and everything they have or may obtain to building the kingdom of God. So in theory, if Romney were to become president, he has promised to use that power to help build the kingdom of God. I think that poses a fundamental conflict with the first amendment.
In current practice, this covenant amounts to promising to give of your time and resources in any way the church might ask. The LDS scriptures are pretty clear in supporting the first amendment.
quote:We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied. D&C 134:9
So I agree with those who have said that a real conflict is unlikely. In the unlikely event that someone were to ask the President to use his power to provide some advantage to the church, he would be on very solid ground denying the request on the basis that it was unjust and contrary to scriptural principles.
But I can easily see why someone who was not a member of the church would feel very uncomfortable with this.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:So in theory, if Romney were to become president, he has promised to use that power to help build the kingdom of God. I think that poses a fundamental conflict with the first amendment.
See, that's not how I've interpreted that covenant at all. Otherwise any temple-endowed Mormon in any job or position would feel obligated to use that position to further the church's interests. I think that covenant is carried out in our lives naturally as members of the church. It isn't meant to conflict or have precedent over our daily lives or whatever influences we have like that. The POTUS is no exception.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: afr,
Do you mean that there is a conflict but events would be very unlikely to bring them together, sparking the conflict? Or that the two imperatives don't challenge one another, either hypothetically or in reality?
I don't think they challenge one another.
In the course of fulfilling his job as POTUS, Romney would not be in conflict with temple matters. That's true for the vast majority of church members holding a temple recommend, IMO. We're not a bunch of sleeper agents waiting for activation.
Which is exactly what a sleeper agent would say...
I've got my eye on you, sir.
Both eyes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So in this case, consecrating one's time and energy and resources fully to realizing the Kingdom of God on Earth, that would be in line with executing the office of the President so that our secular society is firmly entrenched and protected against all comera...including that very same Kingdom? Or is the Kingdom of God to be considered a secular society where absolutely no religion is viewed more favorably than another?
Now don't get me wrong, I think when people say things like 'Kingdom of God', they often mean a lot of very good things, such as a nonviolent society with strong social justice and dignity for all it's people. But our government is supposed to be, is written to be, secular. So while I don't think Mormons are sleeper agents, I do think that so far as I understand it full committments to both the Presidency and the Church will entail some conflict by definition. Either one will not consecrate all of their time and effort to realizing the Kingdom of God, or they will. If they do, they simply aren't protecting our secular society as they're supposed to.
This seems to me to be very straightforward, but I freely admit I only somewhat understand this particular commandment, to consecrate etc. Perhaps you could go into further detail?
-----
As to the secrecy thing...yeah. If a candidate says to me, "There are important details about how I view the world and my obligations to it that I will not be discussing with you, unless you already think like I do," that is simply not shall we say a selling point. I don't believe there's anything nefarious in there, but I'm simply not seeing how someone can maintain secrecy of that sort and then insist you ought to vote for them.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not quite clear Rakeesh, are you saying they wouldn't be able to do both because you feel that the fulfilling the role as president has some elements that are incompatible with the LDS view on the Kingdom of God, or just that if he gives his all to the presidency he will not be able to give his all to his religious covenants and vice-versa?
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am still bothered by the idea of the Constitution as a sacred document. I think that is a dangerous idea.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Jeff, that's what I expected you to think. And before you react to that, remember--I expected your reaction, too.
Rakeesh, at least some of the reluctance to discuss details of the temple ceremony in this kind of setting comes from the near certainty that they will be immediately taken the wrong way. These are important and sacred things to church members, somewhat similar to private family relations for which there are walls on homes and curtains on windows. Yes, we work to understand some of these things too and how they should fit into our lives. The covenants are not benign; they are active in our lives and should have an effect on our behavior and goals. That's the point.
That said, I do believe that a Mormon President would only be fulfilling that big covenant he's made at the temple by striving to fulfill his duties as POTUS with integrity and fairness to all people and in everything within the scope of his duties and powers. He should uphold the secular nature of the government. As both the POTUS and as a current temple recommend holder (which I assume he is) he would not need to waffle between two conflicting imperatives, nor would he feel an obligation to favor church members or particular church interests. Nor should he, and I say that emphatically. I personally feel that it would be a violation of that covenant for him to govern with unfairness or use his significant power in any way other than what it is lent to him for. Of course he will act from his own point of view, just like every president has. I don't think he'll deny his faith or his belief in the hand of God. But he's not going to be using the office to bring about Mormon Zion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not quite clear Rakeesh, are you saying they wouldn't be able to do both because you feel that the fulfilling the role as president has some elements that are incompatible with the LDS view on the Kingdom of God, or just that if he gives his all to the presidency he will not be able to give his all to his religious covenants and vice-versa?
Hobbes
I'll try to put it another way: the President's primary duty is to protect the US Constitution. The Constitution enacts a secular society. While in a given 4-8 year period, specific conflicts between maintaining secular society (such as we have, and it's often shaky) and the intrusion of religion into government may not be especially dire, or even very noteworthy in and of themselves. I think they shall always happen, though. I think we'd be hard pressed to find such a length of time without any such conflict.
Given that, if it is a President's duty to serve the Constitution (and it is), and if that means a secular government (which it does), how then can that President also in the body and from the mind of the same person consecrate themselves to realizing the Kingdom of God on Earth?
The only way out of this difficulty is, so far as I can see, if the LDS version of the Kingdom of God (we'll just assume this is something easy to define and agreed upon by all Mormons and their leadership, for the sake of argument) actually means 'secular governance in which all people are absolutely free to choose whichever religion they like, if any, and government itself puts forward no subtle or outright preference for any religion-or no religion.' If *that* is what the LDS Kingdom of God as realized on Earth includes, then sure, by all means, no conflict. I very well may be wrong, but I'll be surprised if you tell me it does, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
afr,
Don't get me wrong, I totally get the reluctance to discuss it openly, and I empathize with that reasoning. It's just, well, the kinds of things I imagine fall under this secrecy-and anyone is entitled, of course, to whatever privacy or publicity about their thoughts that they like-is fine. Except when you're asking people to vote for you-when there are things that are, as you say, profoundly important, active parts of your life with respect to the world around you, not just with your closest friends and family. I've got a right to know what you think about your obligations to your fellow humans and citizens, I've got a right to ask and insist upon an answer before I even consider the question of voting for you. If you wish to keep your silence, very well, but if I then (as is very likely, in Romney's case, but for lots of other reasons first) refuse to vote for you...well, it's your job to get me to trust you. I'm under no obligation to trust you.
I hope I'm not coming off as harsh or angry-I don't intend to be. I'm just trying to be direct. I'm neither angry about this secrecy nor convinced there's lots of dirty stuff in there. In fact, I suspect there are quite a few things I'd respect and admire if I knew about them-but I don't.
If, as you say, he is commanded by his religion to uphold our secular government and not just refuse to work to bring about the Mormon Zion, but also refuse even nods or half-steps in that direction, that's very good. I would prefer he held to that belief for non-religious reasons, but different strokes for different folks. When it comes down to it, though, not only do I not trust Romney not to make head-fakes in that direction (this is a product of his having to get in bed with right wing conservative Republicans), but I would be very surprised if Obama made fewer such moves than Romney would. Which for me is a reason to vote for him.
Overall, though, one of my biggest reasons is simply to give a repudiation to Republicans this Presidential election. I regard them as a party for some time now as dishonest, dishonorable, cheap, and committed always to ratcheting us back as far as they can get away with. Note I'm not talking about Republican ideals, but the party as it exists. They'd near need to put ZombieLincoln for me to consider voting for a ticket with their party on it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm not big on the Republicans either, especially in this election. I'm largely disgusted with their practices and very unconvinced by their professions of sincerity. I'm not a true-blue Romney fan by any means and haven't been impressed with his ability to be transparent or with his apparent need to kowtow to the Republican base. That said, I don't think he's a scoundrel and I do believe he would honestly strive to do a good job in the office. I think many people would be surprised at how he conducts himself. I largely felt (and still mostly feel) the same way about Obama. Whether either of them turns out to be an effective president is another matter.
With Romney so prominent, Mormons are struggling to get comfortable with so much attention so fast on seemingly every aspect of their beliefs and practices--virtual Birther-like scrutiny sometimes. All of a sudden everybody has an opinion. Everybody wants to know what's going to make a Mormon president tick, or have theories on the matter. I think I have somewhat of an idea, but I'm still very curious.
I guess I have to ask myself whether I would trust an athiest POTUS not to make head-fakes in the same direction as a devout Mormon might. It all depends on the man or woman (and on the many, many forces bent on pushing them one way or the other). I can't predict what Romney would do, but I can say what I hope he would do. I hope he would be a staunch champion of the rights of all people and especially be diligent in upholding that very crucial separation of church and state. I don't want my government sliding toward a national religion anymore than you do.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure that the particular "belief" you are referring to is not scriptural and not official doctrine so I think it would be more than a little presumptuous to assume that because a candidate is Mormon he shares your particular beliefs about the constitution.
Scriptural or not, official doctrine or not, it's a pretty good assumption, as far as making assumptions about what a person believes based on what religion they belong to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The thing is, afr, with an atheist or agnostic POTUS, you can just ask what their convictions are and they aren't going to say, "I can't talk about that," for any reason we're somehow expected to deem acceptable. And while that POTUS may very well be lying, that's true of anyone without the additional layer of secrecy.
Anyway, as for any motions in a direction, there's an additional advantage: it's a helluva lot easier for a religious POTUS to make head fakes in the direction of advancing religion into government than it's likely to be for a secular POTUS to...I guess make a move to intrude atheism into private life?...in our lifetimes. There's really not an equivalence there.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:...a secular POTUS to...I guess make a move to intrude atheism into private life?
Heh. I wonder what this would look like. A "prayer is meaningless" breakfast? A national day of eye rolling? A push to have Sam Harris appointed as the Senate Chaplain?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The only way out of this difficulty is, so far as I can see, if the LDS version of the Kingdom of God (we'll just assume this is something easy to define and agreed upon by all Mormons and their leadership, for the sake of argument) actually means 'secular governance in which all people are absolutely free to choose whichever religion they like, if any, and government itself puts forward no subtle or outright preference for any religion-or no religion.' If *that* is what the LDS Kingdom of God as realized on Earth includes, then sure, by all means, no conflict. I very well may be wrong, but I'll be surprised if you tell me it does, though.
Then prepare to be surprised because, at least to a first approximation, the LDS version of Zion means secular governance.
Here is the official position of the church on government. It was written in 1835 but has been adopted as part of our scriptures.
[ February 08, 2012, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You trust a POTUS who is a committed atheist to uphold freedom of religion in the country. I am equally as convinced that a devout Mormon POTUS could be equally trusted. I see it as very equivalent. Right now, the Mormon actually stands a fair chance of becoming the next POTUS, and many people do not trust him because they think he's going to impose his religious beliefs on the country. That's about the same to me as people not trusting an atheist because he or she must have an agenda against religion.
You have essentially all the beliefs Mormons hold available to you. There's not a big slate of secret beliefs that Joe Presidential Candidate would have to say "I can't talk about that" about. Everything discussed in the temple is found in the scriptures to some degree. If Mormons won't discuss the temple ceremony on the spot it's not because it's a bunch of secret beliefs they're not allowed to reveal. I thought Hatrack had already gone the rounds on "sacred." But like I said, we're not a bunch of sleeper agents. Romney does not have a list of secret instructions to be activated as soon as he lifts his hand from the bible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by iglee: I understand that there is concern among some Americans that a Mormon President of the United States would be influenced by his beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... the Mormon actually stands a fair chance of becoming the next POTUS, and many people do not trust him because they think he's going to impose his religious beliefs on the country.
I would note a bit of a shift here, there is concern about a Mormon president being influenced by his beliefs just like, well, past Presidents on issues such as abstinence-only education, abortion, teaching of intelligent design/evolution in schools, the close ties between Christianity and the military/prison, and foreign policy.
For me at least, there is less concern that a Mormon president would literally start trying to convert people via governmental policy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
afr,
I don't trust a hypothetical atheist/agnostic POTUS to do that, based on that information alone. I mean, it's just not enough. But as to why it's not equivalent, here's why: the atheist/agnostic POTUS hasn't made and promises, either to God or whomever, to consecrate their lives to realizing the Kingdom of God on Earth. They aren't committed to the belief that things would just be better if only everyone could be persuaded to adopt the correct brand of religion. Not just the conviction of superiority (which is understandable, we generally think we're right after all), but the commandment to go forth and seek converts.
This is not to say no religious POTUS can ever be trusted to remain secular. It's just to say that there are temptations native to religion, or at least all of the religions we've ever had sitting in the White House, that simply don't exist for a secular POTUS.
Put another way, an atheist doesn't necessarily (of course, many often do) have an agenda against religion. However, monotheists almost as a rule do by definition have an agenda against other religions, even if it's as simple as 'try to convert them to our beliefs, and they and the world will be better for it'. I don't believe Jews have such an agenda as a religion, but Christians most certainly do, and Mormons are an especially striking example of this agenda. Again, this doesn't mean that a Mormon POTUS couldn't be trusted in this area. I'm only pointing out that there is a conflict that needs to be resolved. With Romney, I believe it has been resolved in a pretty firm (though not as firm as I'd like) committment to a secular government.
quote:You have essentially all the beliefs Mormons hold available to you. There's not a big slate of secret beliefs that Joe Presidential Candidate would have to say "I can't talk about that" about. Everything discussed in the temple is found in the scriptures to some degree. If Mormons won't discuss the temple ceremony on the spot it's not because it's a bunch of secret beliefs they're not allowed to reveal. I thought Hatrack had already gone the rounds on "sacred." But like I said, we're not a bunch of sleeper agents. Romney does not have a list of secret instructions to be activated as soon as he lifts his hand from the bible.
Yes, I know. I've heard it before, from people I trust, and I'm firmly convinced that you're not only meaning what you say, but are accurately conveying the facts. That's not my issue, I'm afraid. My issue is that I don't think a candidate should be able to say, particularly when courting people's votes, "I'm not going to talk about that," or, "There are things I'm not permitted to speak of." Even if those things aren't of vital or even moderate importance. Even if the answers to those questions can be found elsewhere, indirectly. It's got nothing to do with the candidate being Mormon, and everything to do with voters not scrutizing any candidates enough, and not asking enough questions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I would note a bit of a shift here, there is concern about a Mormon president being influenced by his beliefs just like, well, past Presidents on issues such as abstinence-only education, abortion, teaching of intelligent design/evolution in schools, the close ties between Christianity and the military/prison, and foreign policy.
For me at least, there is less concern that a Mormon president would literally start trying to convert people via governmental policy.
This is exactly what I was trying to get at. My trust that Romney won't try and start to convert people through government policy is about as high as I trust any politician to do anything. My trust that he wouldn't simply reject the press of religion into things like sex education in public schools, or the sciences, is much lower.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Rakeesh, I think all Romney has to say is something like "My religion teaches me, and I believe, that I should avoid public discussion of temple ceremonies. I would hope people can understand and respect that. However, if you must know, you can find the information online. Sadly it's hard to find without a lot of baggage from people who dislike my church, so take it with a grain of salt."
I mean, these aren't things he's "not permitted" to talk about or that no one has ever talked about.
It's weird enough to bother people, still, but it's not some worrisome veil of mystery, either.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I would note a bit of a shift here, there is concern about a Mormon president being influenced by his beliefs just like, well, past Presidents on issues such as abstinence-only education, abortion, teaching of intelligent design/evolution in schools, the close ties between Christianity and the military/prison, and foreign policy.
For me at least, there is less concern that a Mormon president would literally start trying to convert people via governmental policy.
This is exactly what I was trying to get at. My trust that Romney won't try and start to convert people through government policy is about as high as I trust any politician to do anything. My trust that he wouldn't simply reject the press of religion into things like sex education in public schools, or the sciences, is much lower.
Romney definitely wouldn't be trying to root out religion from schools, sure. On the flip side, I don't see him trying to inject more religion into them. He wouldn't go against organized religion in his policies, perhaps, but he also wouldn't come in with a pro-religion agenda. I don't see him having a hard right line at all, and yet remain a devout Mormon while in office.
Would a committed atheist, when the time comes that such a candidate is elected, come in determined to minimize the footprint of religion wherever they can and throw up obstacles to the growth and operation of organized religions? Lots of Christians might fear this, and doubtless these fears are largely unfounded. But I see people fearing the same kind of thing in the opposite direction from someone like Romney.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am increasingly disturbed by a political mindset that believes anything vaguely like, "the US is special to God in a way that other countries aren't". Or "God has a special plan for the US". I get the fuzzy impression that this is LDS doctrine but would love to be corrected on that.
I don't think that this idea is just LDS doctrine; I think that it is part of many evangelical religions as well as being a part of US history.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am increasingly disturbed by a political mindset that believes anything vaguely like, "the US is special to God in a way that other countries aren't". Or "God has a special plan for the US". I get the fuzzy impression that this is LDS doctrine but would love to be corrected on that.
I don't think that this idea is just LDS doctrine; I think that it is part of many evangelical religions as well as being a part of US history.
It's just that whole 'single-child syndrome' on a large, national scale. Individuals like to think they're special, that they've got some hidden destiny or whatever (it's the reason comic books and super heroes are so popular). It shouldn't come as any surprise that a group of people think their specific group is special, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
afr,
quote:Romney definitely wouldn't be trying to root out religion from schools, sure. On the flip side, I don't see him trying to inject more religion into them. He wouldn't go against organized religion in his policies, perhaps, but he also wouldn't come in with a pro-religion agenda. I don't see him having a hard right line at all, and yet remain a devout Mormon while in office.
Well, he probably wouldn't come in with a more pro-religion agenda than the status quo, I agree. And again, I don't see, knowing more of the complete picture about Romney, that he would have a conflict between his religion and his duties to maintain secularism in our government. I think he's already resolved that conflict, in favor of (mostly) maintaining secularism.
quote:Would a committed atheist, when the time comes that such a candidate is elected, come in determined to minimize the footprint of religion wherever they can and throw up obstacles to the growth and operation of organized religions? Lots of Christians might fear this, and doubtless these fears are largely unfounded. But I see people fearing the same kind of thing in the opposite direction from someone like Romney.
Well, that would actually be his or her job as POTUS, to minimize the footprint of religion in government. Whether atheist, agnostic, monotheistic, polytheistic, whatever. And while I can certainly see many people fearing a sort of aggressive, evangelizing atheism from an atheist POTUS...again, it's not implicit in the atheism the way evangelizing is in nearly all religions, particularly among monotheists. It's not built-in.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... Would a committed atheist ... throw up obstacles to the growth and operation of organized religions? Lots of Christians might fear this, and doubtless these fears are largely unfounded.
They are not unfounded.
The fact is that Christians hold many privileges in areas of governmental policy. I would totally expect an atheist president to roll many of these back.
Put bluntly, I expect that an atheist president would have little time for say, promoting abstinence-only education or pushing faith-based prisons. Deprived of these platforms for proselytization, certain religions will see slower growth and will see the removal of them as obstacles.
[ February 08, 2012, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am increasingly disturbed by a political mindset that believes anything vaguely like, "the US is special to God in a way that other countries aren't". Or "God has a special plan for the US". I get the fuzzy impression that this is LDS doctrine but would love to be corrected on that.
I don't think that this idea is just LDS doctrine; I think that it is part of many evangelical religions as well as being a part of US history.
It's just that whole 'single-child syndrome' on a large, national scale. Individuals like to think they're special, that they've got some hidden destiny or whatever (it's the reason comic books and super heroes are so popular). It shouldn't come as any surprise that a group of people think their specific group is special, too.
It doesn't surprise me. I just prefer that the President doesn't buy into it. The "God is on our side"attitude tends to lead to committing atrocities.
Posted by iglee (Member # 12455) on :
Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about. What we believe in that regard is that God helped establish a country (and has helped preserve it) which would promote and protect individual freedom, including freedom of religion. He is on our side only insofar as we seek to preserve that and are willing to serve and help others in positive ways.
(see the link that Rabbit posted)
You wrote, "It doesn't surprise me. I just prefer that the President doesn't buy into it. The "God is on our side" attitude tends to lead to committing atrocities."
I think you are right that it can tend to lead to justifying all sorts of atrocities. It is a large part of the sad history the world. Our attitude is that God does not justify anyone to commit atrocities and is especially displeased with anyone who tries to invoke His Name to do so. I sincerely hope that a Mormon or any other flavor of POTUS would not fall into that trap. God is most definitely NOT on the side of any country or person that does.
What God most definitely IS on the side of is freedom.
(again, see the link Rabbit posted on our Declaration on Beliefs regarding civil government.)
I've got to run for now but I've got more to say about this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. That whole post is frightening. Especially as it was meant to be reassuring.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about. What we believe in that regard is that God helped establish a country (and has helped preserve it) which would promote and protect individual freedom, including freedom of religion. He is on our side only insofar as we seek to preserve that and are willing to serve and help others in positive ways.
Like Indians, black people, and gays? If you're going to characterize things in this way, iglee-if you're going to say that the only people concerned are 'enemies of freedom'-expect to have a whole list of things brought up right back at you.
God had a plan for this country, huh? One of those old-fashioned plans of His, plainly, where little things like its original occupants aren't of concern except how they're to be swept aside.
'Help people in positive ways'. Pff. I'm sure that help won't at all take the form of 'for your own good', now will it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about. What we believe in that regard is that God helped establish a country (and has helped preserve it) which would promote and protect individual freedom, including freedom of religion.
._________.
I assume the .. uh, native americans were just sort of, uh, in the way of that God-helped establishment of a country.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about. What we believe in that regard is that God helped establish a country (and has helped preserve it) which would promote and protect individual freedom, including freedom of religion. He is on our side only insofar as we seek to preserve that and are willing to serve and help others in positive ways.
Like Indians, black people, and gays?
Well, he's more on our side now than he was back then. Obviously.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Considering who has claimed God's approval on the national level throughout history, it's really not something I'd go out of my way go speak proudly about.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am increasingly disturbed by a political mindset that believes anything vaguely like, "the US is special to God in a way that other countries aren't". Or "God has a special plan for the US". I get the fuzzy impression that this is LDS doctrine but would love to be corrected on that.
I don't think that this idea is just LDS doctrine; I think that it is part of many evangelical religions as well as being a part of US history.
It's just that whole 'single-child syndrome' on a large, national scale. Individuals like to think they're special, that they've got some hidden destiny or whatever (it's the reason comic books and super heroes are so popular). It shouldn't come as any surprise that a group of people think their specific group is special, too.
It doesn't surprise me. I just prefer that the President doesn't buy into it. The "God is on our side"attitude tends to lead to committing atrocities.
Oh, you'll get no disagreement from me on that one.
I mean, if you really think about it, the bulk of this nation's history is pretty damn bloody, and through it all we thought we were doing God's work.
Posted by iglee (Member # 12455) on :
Well, I did have a lot to say, but a family crisis has come up. So hash it out among yourselves. I don't have anymore time for this. I will just say this:
kombboots, you posted:
"What makes you think that a Mormon president would take that vow more seriously than a non-Mormon president? "
What makes you think I used the word “more” anywhere in my post? What makes you infer that I believe any such nonsense like Mormons have a monopoly on honor and patriotism?
Rabbit, you asked, "Would you apply this same reasoning to a Mormon democrat, say Harry Reid for example?"
Here is the Senatorial Oath of Office, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
So yes, I expect Senator Harry Reid to take his oath seriously.
You also said,
"I'm pretty sure that the particular "belief" you are referring to is not scriptural and not official doctrine so I think it would be more than a little presumptuous to assume that because a candidate is Mormon he shares your particular beliefs about the constitution."
No and yes.
No, you are wrong in thinking that what I was referring to is not scriptural. What I'm thinking about is scriptural in the books we accept as scriptural.
I refer you to these passages in the Doctrine and Covenants: 101: 76-80 109:54 98:4-10 and also our 11th and 12th Article of Faith then there is also the link you posted and I thank you for that. But yes, you are right also. There is not a total unity of the faith concerning which parts of the Constitution were inspired by God in order to establish freedom of religion and all the other individual freedoms which are so important. I pretty much agree with this article which explains it. It is important to remember that we don't believe that every part of the Constitution is inspired. A lot of it needed and still does need work. :
Yes, it is presumptuous to assume that any particular Mormon feels the same way about it as I do. That is why I like to find out if I can just how any particular candidate feels about the Constitution. I intend to do that this time around too.
Quoting from the above linked article here is part of what Dallin Oaks feels about it,
“Elder Oaks considered five parts of the Constitution to be inspired. His list consisted of these items: Separation of powers (between branches of federal government) A written Bill of Rights Division of powers (between federal and state) Popular Sovereignty The rule of law and not of men. “
I pretty much agree with that article and I believe the Constitution is worth supporting and defending because it is still the best way I can think of for preserving freedom. But of course if any of you think there is a better way and think that the Bill of Rights and those other items are outdated and need to be done away with, and think that we ought to give our allegiance to a particular person or party or whatever instead of to the rule of law. Then, by all means, go find a candidate that agrees with you.
Goodbye, I don't have any more time to write any more. But I'm not so egotistical to think that anyone cares anyway.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I hope your family crisis is resolved quickly and happily.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I hope you too, Iglee!
But seriously I also hope your family crisis turns out okay. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry for the double ish posting. I hate posting from the phone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What makes you think I used the word “more” anywhere in my post? What makes you infer that I believe any such nonsense like Mormons have a monopoly on honor and patriotism?
Well, when you say things like, "Yeah, we think this thing, but only enemies of freedom need to be worries," there is in fact implied a superiority in certain virtues-at the very least the virtue of loving liberty, compared to detractors. So I can't speak for anyone else, but that's where *I* got the idea.
quote:But yes, you are right also. There is not a total unity of the faith concerning which parts of the Constitution were inspired by God in order to establish freedom of religion and all the other individual freedoms which are so important. I pretty much agree with this article which explains it. It is important to remember that we don't believe that every part of the Constitution is inspired. A lot of it needed and still does need work.
Let's just say without going into the many objections that naturally occur in response to this sort of thinking that it's a shame more Mormon leaders don't share this respect for the sacred secular principles of our nation, then, and its governing document the Constitution. It wasn't a bunch of Mormon leaders who overturned Prop 8 out in California, but God knows they were conspicuous in its initial passage.
quote:I pretty much agree with that article and I believe the Constitution is worth supporting and defending because it is still the best way I can think of for preserving freedom. But of course if any of you think there is a better way and think that the Bill of Rights and those other items are outdated and need to be done away with, and think that we ought to give our allegiance to a particular person or party or whatever instead of to the rule of law. Then, by all means, go find a candidate that agrees with you.
Who here thinks the Bill of Rights is outdated?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Some day there shall be a nation full of Mormons, and that nation shall be known as Mormania.
Mormania will be a nation of freedom, but without soda or tea because those are evil.
The end.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See? Depending on what they [taxes] were to be used for, I think that Jesus would approve [of raising taxes].
Why? The only comment Jesus ever made about taxation was "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
He said nothing about using the power of the state to assist the poor. From a certain point of view, taxation in order to support state run welfare runs contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, because then the individual is removed from providing comfort, sustenance, etc., to those who need them; instead, the power to do good is given to a faceless agency.
(I believe, by the way, that taxes should be increased, and federal and state programs to assist the poor and needy better funded-- but to use the gospel as the foundation for such a program is misguided.)
And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.
[ February 09, 2012, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Who here thinks the Bill of Rights is outdated?
While many parts of the Bill of Rights are as relevant today as they were two centuries ago, some parts of it are definitely outdated. I doubt any one would argue that the $20 dollar lower limit set for jury trials of civil suits in the 7th amendment is not outdated. The entire third amendment seems rather obsolete.
There are serious arguments about whether "jury trials" are outdated all together. I think nearly all Americans would agree that there are at least some problems with the jury system. I'm not familiar enough with the alternatives to know whether I'd support getting rid of trial by jury altogether or not, but I do think that there are many instances where a trial by a jury of peers does not serve justice.
I personally think the second amendment is outdated for several reasons. We no longer live in a frontier society where people need to protect themselves from hostile natives. Most modern weapons (automatic rifles, high explosives, rocket launchers, missiles, tanks, nerve gas, nukes) are simply too dangerous for their ownership to be a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen. The ability of National Guard troops to fulfill their duty to protect states in times of crisis and operate independently of the Federal Army has been severely compromised because of the need for high tech weaponry. So I think there are numerous reasonable grounds for arguing the 2nd amendment is outdated in the era of modern weapons technology.
Although I strongly disagree, it seems that a majority of Americans think that International Terrorism makes parts of the 1st and 5th amendment outdated.
The overall concept of guaranteeing individual rights is something that will never be outdated, but the specific way those rights were incorporated in the Bill of Rights could easily become outdated and require revision. That's at least part of why we have added so many other amendments to the constitution. Consider that the right to vote in elections, something I think most of us take for granted, wasn't protected in the constitution until after the Civil War.
[ February 09, 2012, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I think that, in ancient Rome, it could very well be that the individual was removed from the act of charity. With a representative government, I don't think that is the case. We make the choices about what we want our society to be and what priorities we want to support. I don't think that the gospel necessarily supports individual rather than community action. In fact, I think that it encourages us to see ourselves as part of a larger body (whether that body is the church or society or all of the kingdom of God) rather than separate.
Besides, Jesus hung out with tax collectors. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Scott, I think that, in ancient Rome, it could very well be that the individual was removed from the act of charity. With a representative government, I don't think that is the case. We make the choices about what we want our society to be and what priorities we want to support. I don't think that the gospel necessarily supports individual rather than community action. In fact, I think that it encourages us to see ourselves as part of a larger body (whether that body is the church or society or all of the kingdom of God) rather than separate.
Besides, Jesus hung out with tax collectors.
If only you would use scriptural text-- or historical text-- to back up your ideas, we could have something to talk about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Romans 12 comes to mind if you want to get serious about this.
ETA: If you want historical text - particularly from a Catholic perspective - there is a lot.
[ February 09, 2012, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What specifically in Romans 12 indicates that Jesus favored the use of the power of the state to collect taxes for the upkeep of the poor?
That's a chapter written for the believers and dedicated; are you suggesting it apply politically across a non-standard/non-believing populations?
quote:Jesus hung out with tax collectors.
Well, here's the whole story:
quote: 10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
He hung out with publicans to bring them to repentance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The winky wasn't enough of a clue that I was kidding with the tax collector?
I thought you were asking for Scriptural references to support the statement that you quoted.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We've been talking about Jesus' attitudes toward taxation. I thought that was pretty clear.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.
A DAMNABLE LIE!!!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.
A DAMNABLE LIE!!!
Mormons drink pop not soda. Soda is short for "sodium bicarbonate" commonly sold as "baking soda". Mormon's aren't forbidden to drink baking soda, we just don't think it makes a pleasant beverage.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Romans 12 comes to mind if you want to get serious about this.
ETA: If you want historical text - particularly from a Catholic perspective - there is a lot.
Romans 13 speaks more directly to the government question.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.
A DAMNABLE LIE!!!
Mormons drink pop not soda. Soda is short for "sodium bicarbonate" commonly sold as "baking soda". Mormon's aren't forbidden to drink baking soda, we just don't think it makes a pleasant beverage.
Regardless, I always thought that myth about the no-caffeine rule was hilarious. I've had mormon friends and they all were allowed to drink tea and cola.
Anyway, none of that would matter in Mormonia. Everyone would wear white shirts and slacks, ride bikes, and we'd all have multiple wives. It would be pretty awesome and everyone would be happy. If you aren't happy with those things, then you'd be banished to the Elephant Graveyard, just outside the giant electric fence. The Elephant Graveyard is a horrible and dark place filled with hilariously evil jackals that are voiced by Whoopy Goldburg. No one comes back from there alive. Or even dead.
BOO!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Mormons drink pop not soda.
Is that a western US usage? By me, 'Pop' is a name Yankees call their fathers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Romans 12 comes to mind if you want to get serious about this.
ETA: If you want historical text - particularly from a Catholic perspective - there is a lot.
Romans 13 speaks more directly to the government question.
...in that it says, "Pay taxes that are due; support government officials."
It doesn't address the correctness of using the power of the state to answer the needs of the poor, as far as I can tell.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mormons drink pop not soda.
Is that a western US usage? By me, 'Pop' is a name Yankees call their fathers.
Yes! On the western half of the US, carbonated sugary beverages are called 'pop'. In the east, those same drinks are called 'soda'. The people I know from Minnesota (dead middle of the country), call it 'soda pop'. Some people I know from the deep south, call all carbonated sugary beverages 'coke' but I've come to expect that kind of aberrant behavior from southerners.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just found this website that maps the pop vs soda controversy.
You will note, that this map confirms my long held theory that California is not actually part of the Western US.
When I was a kid, my family lived in Pennsylvania for about 5 years where I learned to call carbonated drinks "soda", when my family moved back to Utah -- if you asked for 'soda' you got a box of baking soda. No one knew what you were talking about if you wanted to drink soda. I think that this regional distinction, has faded considerably over the last few decades. The map I linked does indeed show a lot more of a mix than I remember as a kid.
[ February 09, 2012, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I grew up in MN and called it pop. Of course, my family moved to MN from the western U.S.
I propose Minnesota change its name to Minnepop. It is, after all, in the midwest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: We've been talking about Jesus' attitudes toward taxation. I thought that was pretty clear.
It may have been to you. I was talking more specifically about thinking of ourselves as part of community for which we are responsible. Jesus was pretty clear on our duty to the poor. I don't see where he specified that should only be acted on as individuals. Of course the writers of the Gospels were not considering representative government at the time.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I drink soda. I haven't had "pop" since...
...since about the time I stopped going to church.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I drink soda. I haven't had "pop" since...
...since about the time I stopped going to church.
Clear evidence of the depth of your apostasy. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Robert Siegal shudders whenever someone calls it pop.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. That whole post is frightening. Especially as it was meant to be reassuring.
Kate, I can't figure out which post it was you thought was frightening. Were you referring to my post? If so, what part did you find "frightening"?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I grew up in MN and have always said pop, for what it's worth. I don't know anyone who calls it soda-pop. I can deal with either, but the people who call all pop coke bug me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. That whole post is frightening. Especially as it was meant to be reassuring.
Kate, I can't figure out which post it was you thought was frightening. Were you referring to my post? If so, what part did you find "frightening"?
Not yours. Iglee's post that was right before mine. The one that started with, "Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about."
You don't scare me. I would even vote for you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I grew up in MN and have always said pop, for what it's worth. I don't know anyone who calls it soda-pop. I can deal with either, but the people who call all pop coke bug me.
I know it's probably unfair bigotry of some sort, but I've found that as a general rule, calling all pope "coke" is a pretty good indicator that the person is going to bug me in a all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with beverages.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I've lived mostly in WI and IL and use"pop" and "soda" interchangeably. I probably say "soda" more often than "pop" but neither is different enough to get my notice.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You will note, that this map confirms my long held theory that California is not actually part of the Western US.
If by that you mean that we don't buy into such linguistic heresies as "pop" the way flyover country does, then of course.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I was talking more specifically about thinking of ourselves as part of community for which we are responsible.
Indeed, that's how you appeared to lead the conversation after I entered and challenged you on your initial assertion.
Here's the conversation that prompted my entry into this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm a Christian and I think it would honestly be better to have an Agnostic in office. Either that, or just have it so that the President is forbidden to talk about religion in public.
I mean, just today I saw the President using Jesus as an excuse to raise taxes. Seriously, I'm sure our savior would be proud.
To which you replied:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See? Depending on what they were to be used for, I think that Jesus would approve.
I'd really like to understand from a scriptural point of view, how you can make that statement. Neither Jesus nor his apostles said much about using the state's power to assist the poor; though they did talk a LOT about individuals helping others (and the Church is specifically commanded to assist the poor), there's scarce evidence for welfare policy-making (from the state's point of view) in the scriptures.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It didn't sound very scriptural to me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You will note, that this map confirms my long held theory that California is not actually part of the Western US.
If by that you mean that we don't buy into such linguistic heresies as "pop" the way flyover country does, then of course.
Seriously.
The real West (aka Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada) are with us, too. What do you "Pop" people have? The Pacific Northwest? Bah. They use 'em both interchangeably. You can't rely on them. They're fickle. They'll let you down, Rabbit.
Stay in your quaint little world in the midwest, and live in blissful, poppy ignorance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've found it useful to refer to states west of the mid-west as "True West".
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Scott, take a close look at Matthew 25:32. It doesn't say that all individuals will be gathered together and sorted according to whether they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the sick and imprisoned, it says all nations will be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've found it useful to refer to states west of the mid-west as "True West".
O_o
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mormons drink pop not soda.
Is that a western US usage? By me, 'Pop' is a name Yankees call their fathers.
Yes! On the western half of the US, carbonated sugary beverages are called 'pop'.
Except in California and New Mexico, where soda is soda and pop is a name for yer dad or in some cases, a small candy on a stick.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I drink soda. I haven't had "pop" since...
...since about the time I stopped going to church.
Clear evidence of the depth of your apostasy.
apopstasy
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've found it useful to refer to states west of the mid-west as "True West".
O_o
o_O ?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: apopstasy
*GROAN*
*throws things at Samp*
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: apopstasy
*GROAN*
*throws things at Samp*
*GROAN*
*Throws roses and money and pieces of paper with lipstick imprints on them at Sam*
Beautiful, man. Just beautiful. An exceptionally groan worthy pun.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
(Sorry Sam -- the second one was completely inappropriate for Hatrack.)
[ February 10, 2012, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Scott, take a close look at Matthew 25:32. It doesn't say that all individuals will be gathered together and sorted according to whether they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the sick and imprisoned, it says all nations will be.
The nations are gathered together before the King, but then the King separates them out into sheep and into goats. The only classification after this separation is between the righteous, and those who did not fulfill their obligation to the needy. At the coming of the Son of Man, the nations of the world will be dissolved; there won't be any political boundaries any more.
Note the individualistic language Christ uses as well:
quote:I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
I'll allow that it can possibly be read as a condemnation of general cultural tendencies to neglect the poor; but there's quite a distance from there to saying that Christ supported raising taxes in order to fund welfare programs.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm not actually seeing any individualistic language there. It's all you(pl.) and we.
And in 32 the "them" is a reflexive pronoun (autos) referring to nations. The nations will be gathered and he will separate the nations one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Why do you assume the sheep and the goats are individuals?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'll allow that it can possibly be read as a condemnation of general cultural tendencies to neglect the poor; but there's quite a distance from there to saying that Christ supported raising taxes in order to fund welfare programs.
I haven't seen any one here making that claim. All Kate said was
quote:Depending on what they (taxes) were to be used for, I think that Jesus would approve (of raising taxes). [Big Grin]
There is quite a distance between saying that, based on what Jesus said in the New Testament, you think He would approve of raising taxes under some circumstances and claiming "Christ supported raising taxes in order to fund welfare programs". You are asking Kate to prove something she never claimed.
Do you think an objective person reading the New Testament could rationally conclude that Jesus would be pleased with a democratic country that chose to raise taxes to help the poor and the sick? Do you think that conclusion is more or less consistent with the things Jesus actually said than Jeff C's post, which implied Jesus would be ashamed to have his name used to support tax increases?
[ February 10, 2012, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: I was talking more specifically about thinking of ourselves as part of community for which we are responsible.
Indeed, that's how you appeared to lead the conversation after I entered and challenged you on your initial assertion.
Here's the conversation that prompted my entry into this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm a Christian and I think it would honestly be better to have an Agnostic in office. Either that, or just have it so that the President is forbidden to talk about religion in public.
I mean, just today I saw the President using Jesus as an excuse to raise taxes. Seriously, I'm sure our savior would be proud.
To which you replied:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See? Depending on what they were to be used for, I think that Jesus would approve.
I'd really like to understand from a scriptural point of view, how you can make that statement. Neither Jesus nor his apostles said much about using the state's power to assist the poor; though they did talk a LOT about individuals helping others (and the Church is specifically commanded to assist the poor), there's scarce evidence for welfare policy-making (from the state's point of view) in the scriptures.
I didn't intend to "lead" the conversation anywhere. Here is how that exchanged looked to me.
Your question:
quote: Why? The only comment Jesus ever made about taxation was "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
He said nothing about using the power of the state to assist the poor. From a certain point of view, taxation in order to support state run welfare runs contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, because then the individual is removed from providing comfort, sustenance, etc., to those who need them; instead, the power to do good is given to a faceless agency.
My answer to that question:
quote: Scott, I think that, in ancient Rome, it could very well be that the individual was removed from the act of charity. With a representative government, I don't think that is the case. We make the choices about what we want our society to be and what priorities we want to support. I don't think that the gospel necessarily supports individual rather than community action. In fact, I think that it encourages us to see ourselves as part of a larger body (whether that body is the church or society or all of the kingdom of God) rather than separate.
What I thought was you asking for scriptural support for seeing ourselves as part of a community rather than as individuals:
quote: If only you would use scriptural text-- or historical text-- to back up your ideas, we could have something to talk about.
Which I answered with a reference to Romans as that was the most obvious to me.
As the writers of the NT weren't exactly living in a representative democracy where they had input into how their taxes were spent, no, I don't think there is a specific, "Rome should collect more taxes and we we should vote to use them for food stamps to help the poor" reference. I do think that there is plenty to support helping the poor and no reason to believe that this is meant to be only individual action.
You also asked for historical references. These are generally Catholic so I don't know that you will find them persuasive but they are fairly low hanging fruit.
From Rerum novarum (which, btw, did a lot of justifying private property) with a bonus quote from Thomas Aquinas
quote: It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part.”( Summa theologiae, IIa-Ilae, q. lxi, are. l, ad 2m.) Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice – with that justice which is called distributive – toward each and every class alike.
From Quadragessimo anno
quote: But not every distribution among human beings of property and wealth is of a character to attain either completely or to a satisfactory degree of perfection the end which God intends. Therefore, the riches that economic-social developments constantly increase ought to be so distributed among individual persons and classes that the common advantage of all, which Leo XIII had praised, will be safeguarded; in other words, that the common good of all society will be kept inviolate. By this law of social justice, one class is forbidden to exclude the other from sharing in the benefits….
58. To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.
From Mater et magistra
quote: “Likewise the national economy, as it is the product of the men who work together in the community of the State, has no other end than to secure without interruption the material conditions in which the individual life of the citizens may fully develop. Where this is secured in a permanent way, a people will be, in a true sense, economically rich, because the general well-being, and consequently the personal right of all to the use of worldly goods, is thus actuated in conformity with the purpose willed by the Creator.” (Cf. AAS 33 (1941) 200) From this it follows that the economic prosperity of a nation is not so much its total assets in terms of wealth and property, as the equitable division and distribution of this wealth.
and
quote: Now, if ever, is the time to insist on a more widespread distribution of property, in view of the rapid economic development of an increasing number of States. It will not be difficult for the body politic, by the adoption of various techniques of proved efficiency, to pursue an economic and social policy which facilitates the widest possible distribution of private property in terms of durable consumer goods, houses, land, tools and equipment (in the case of craftsmen and owners of family farms), and shares in medium and large business concerns. This policy is in fact being pursued with considerable success by several of the socially and economically advanced nations.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What I understand is that one does not give to the poor etc, to curry favor with Jesus. One does so because the hungry should not be hungry, the down trodden need support.
Jesus doesn't tell us to heal the sick because it shows your good enough to go to heaven. He says heal the sick because the sick are good enough to be healed.
It doesn't matter to the widow or orphan where their support comes from, as long as it has no strings attached. Those strings could be "Vote for me" or "Come to my church." That makes them not charity but bribery.
So frankly, what ever is most efficient at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick is what is important and what Jesus would do. If that means taxing the wealthy to end the suffering of others, he would do so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well put, Darth Mauve.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mormons drink pop not soda.
Is that a western US usage? By me, 'Pop' is a name Yankees call their fathers.
Yes! On the western half of the US, carbonated sugary beverages are called 'pop'.
Except in California and New Mexico, where soda is soda and pop is a name for yer dad or in some cases, a small candy on a stick.
If I remember correctly, you lived in Los Alamos which is more of an outpost of California than a real part of New Mexico. I had to sign an oath of loyalty to the state of California to work for the lab. Of course, Los Alamos isn't representative of California culture either, it's a singularity in the cultural space time continuum.
Northern New Mexico has at least 4 or 5 very different distinctive cultures. There is the lab culture, the Santa Fe artsy hippy culture, the pueblo culture, the Spanish culture, and a rural white culture. And then there are the Texan invaders.
Arizona and Nevada are interesting cases as well. Up until 40 or 50 years ago, these states were dominated by rural Western culture. Then air conditioning happened. When my Grandfather was born in Arizona around the turn of the century, there were under 150,000 people living in the state. By 1950 the population had grown 750,000 and in 2010 it was 6.6 million. Arizona is almost entirely a state of recent migrants. The same is true to an even larger degree for Nevada and slightly lesser degree for California. Almost no one living in these states has any roots in the region that go back more than 50 years.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm not actually seeing any individualistic language there. It's all you(pl.) and we.
And in 32 the "them" is a reflexive pronoun (autos) referring to nations. The nations will be gathered and he will separate the nations one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Why do you assume the sheep and the goats are individuals?
Thanks Dana, This is a very interesting observation that had never before come to my attention. Would you be willing to comment on what is most likely meant by "nation"? I'm fairly confident it is not synonymous with a modern nation state but means something more like a "tribe" of people with a shared cultural and genetic heritage, like Walloons, Kurds, Bantus, Jews or Navajos.
[ February 10, 2012, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The Greek word is ethnos, and yes, it can be used for kinship groups. In the NT it's most often translated as either "nations" or "Gentiles."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
This thread made me think of a quote from Don Miller (a protestant writer):
"...Andrew says it's not enough to be politically active. He says legislation will never save the world. On Saturday mornings Andrew feeds the homeless. He sets up a makeshift kitchen on the sidewalk and makes breakfast for people who live on the street. He serves coffee and sits with his homeless friends and talks and laughs, and if they want to pray he will pray with them. He's a flaming liberal, really. The thing about it is, though, Andrew believes this is what Jesus wants him to do. Andrew does not believe in empty passion. All great Christian leaders are simple thinkers. Andrew doesn't cloak his altruism within a trickle-down economic theory that allows him to spend fifty dollars on a round of golf to feed the economy and provide jobs for the poor. He actually believes that when Jesus says feed the poor, He means you should do this directly."
I remember in college, every Sunday morning we (a group of roughly 10 kids organized by my friend Courtney) went down to a local community center with a kitchen and cooked pancakes and eggs and bacon for local homeless families, and passed out orange juice in Styrofoam cups. This wasn't part of any large charity or government organization - we'd just go to Sam's Club the night before and buy our supplies in bulk. For about a year we fed around 150 people a week.
While I'm by no means opposed to donation to charity, or government welfare (I vote Democrat, and donate to charity), I think both are kind of missing the point of what Jesus was actually saying. There's something to be said for the human element - actually cooking food for a hungry person, or taking a homeless family into your house, or giving your clothes to someone who doesn't have enough, or slipping an envelope with a few hundred bucks into the hands of a person about to lose their house. These seem to be the sort of things that make the most difference, and we lose sight of that when we give our money, but not our time or our hearts.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:While I'm by no means opposed to donation to charity, or government welfare (I vote Democrat, and donate to charity), I think both are kind of missing the point of what Jesus was actually saying. There's something to be said for the human element - actually cooking food for a hungry person, or taking a homeless family into your house, or giving your clothes to someone who doesn't have enough, or slipping an envelope with a few hundred bucks into the hands of a person about to lose their house. These seem to be the sort of things that make the most difference, and we lose sight of that when we give our money, but not our time or our hearts.
I think it's hard to argue that these are the things that make the "most difference," when every $1,000 or so you give to international charity will actually prevent someone from dying. Especially if you give to a charity that provides malaria nets.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*nod* It's simply a fact that money spends differently in different places. Those commercials (you can feed a village for $0.02/month!) aren't all hyperbole. It's probably one of the more tangible difference-makers, though, the regular in-person charity.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I think you guys missed the point of what I was saying when I brought up the taxes thing.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm a Christian and I think it would honestly be better to have an Agnostic in office. Either that, or just have it so that the President is forbidden to talk about religion in public.
I mean, just today I saw the President using Jesus as an excuse to raise taxes. Seriously, I'm sure our savior would be proud.
I was trying to say that the President was using religion as a means of garnering peoples' votes and/or support, manipulating their opinions by throwing out a reference to his religion. That's the part we should be focusing on here, not whether or not Jesus would approve of raising taxes.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I do think there's a sense in which Dogbreath is totally right, though, about "what Jesus would do." At least I find it interesting that the biblical Christ devoted his time on Earth to face-to-face acts of kindness and healing that didn't really alleviate much suffering in the big scheme of things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The biblical Christ spent at least some of his time preaching to "multitudes" on how to think about the world and our connection to the other people in it. I think that could be considered "big scheme" action.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I'm fairly confident it is not synonymous with a modern nation state but means something more like a "tribe" of people with a shared cultural and genetic heritage, like Walloons, Kurds, Bantus, Jews or Navajos.
Don't forget granfalloons and karass(es), which might actually be a more useful set of divisions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do think there's a sense in which Dogbreath is totally right, though, about "what Jesus would do." At least I find it interesting that the biblical Christ devoted his time on Earth to face-to-face acts of kindness and healing that didn't really alleviate much suffering in the big scheme of things.
In context it's not so surprising-Earthly good deeds don't amount to much stacked up against eternity.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:I'm fairly confident it is not synonymous with a modern nation state but means something more like a "tribe" of people with a shared cultural and genetic heritage, like Walloons, Kurds, Bantus, Jews or Navajos.
Don't forget granfalloons and karass(es), which might actually be a more useful set of divisions.
Heh.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I think it's hard to argue that these are the things that make the "most difference," when every $1,000 or so you give to international charity will actually prevent someone from dying. Especially if you give to a charity that provides malaria nets.
As I said, I'm entitrely in favor of charities - both domestic and international. I just think that delegating your charitable actions, while certainly a good thing, and a very important one, isn't the whole picture. I see a lot of churches whose members tithe, and then a portion of that tithe is sent to a local soup kitchen, and the members of the church are never actually inconvenienced by having to interact with and feed the poor directly. (except for maybe the occasional busload of idealistic youth group kids or something)
There is a danger to that. In 2007 in my home town, a local homeless shelter was shut down and 250 homeless men put out on the street because their largest contributor - a suburban megachurch - decided not to come through on a $1,000,000 donation they depended on every year to stay open. The church used the money to build a new auditorium instead. What sucks is that decision was probably made by a small group of men, and that almost none of the church's 6000+ members even knew it happened. I think if even 10% of that church's members had, say, gone down to various shelters a few times a month to help cook and clean, and had seen first hand what was happening first hand and known the residents as people instead of a religious obligation, it would have never happened.
I'm hesitant to write this, because I feel like I'll be misinterpreted and people will think I'm calling large charities or government welfare a bad thing, which I'm not doing whatsoever. I just Christians have a personal as well as financial and collective obligation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think you are quite right, Dogbreath.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I agree with you Dogbreath. Too often people talk about these things as though they are mutually exclusive options when the correct answer is "all of the above".
I recognize that people's resources are finite so choosing to do one of these things can often in fact mean choosing not to do another. But in American Society today, that is generally a petty excuse and not a sound justification. I'm not saying it isn't true for a lot of individuals, but for society as a whole, we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. Taxes are lower than they've been in half a century. We have money for iPads, flat screen TVs, SUVs and smart phones. We complain about being too busy, but we have time to post on internet forums and watch 5 hours of TV per day (on average). The simple fact is that our society could be doing a lot more to help the least among us if we sincerely wanted too.
[ February 12, 2012, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Dogbreath, seems to me that the problem with the case you describe isn't the delegation of charity, but rather the way church tithing works. I agree that none of this would have happened if more people had gone to work in the soup kitchen. But it also wouldn't have happened if they just took the time to make an informed choice about a private charity to donate to themselves, rather than letting the church do it. And their money would probably have done more good, on balance.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Taking the time to pick out a charity and researching how they actually spend their money takes some personal effort too.
Churches, large charities, government, they're entities to delegate that responsibility to. (and they handle that responsibility with different levels of success) It's not a bad thing at all - few people have the time or energy to dedicate their whole lives to caring for the poor. But it makes it easy to shirk responsibility at a personal level.
I should say I was raised as a child in a Christian denomination that was hyper-personal; Jesus wants a personal relationship with *you*, worship is about *you* getting that warm and fuzzy feeling, the bible exists as a self help book to make *you* more prosperous and happy, you do charity and treat people nicely because it scores *you* brownie points in heaven, etc. etc. etc. We even had a board game when we were a kid called "Treasures in Heaven" where every time you tithed or did something nice or helped an old lady across the street or memorized a bible verse (different squares of the board), you got this nice shiny heavenly currency. Whoever ended up with the most treasure won the game.
The selfishness and self absorption of that religion disgusted me as I grew older, and I'm glad I left it. As of late as I've been exploring Christianity again I've discovered and appreciated the ideas of communal living and responsibility, so it's a little odd that I'm arguing the point of personal responsibility in this thread. Nonetheless I feel I'm saying something important.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Churches, large charities, government, they're entities to delegate that responsibility to. (and they handle that responsibility with different levels of success) It's not a bad thing at all - few people have the time or energy to dedicate their whole lives to caring for the poor. But it makes it easy to shirk responsibility at a personal level.
I see your point, but I think your view of how one can take responsibility on a personal level might be limited. I've known people who spent next to no time involved in personal service but devoted their lives to lobbying for the poor, or working at non profits, or rejecting higher paying careers in favor of more meaningful work. And I've known people who gain great fulfillment from selecting a worthy charity and giving regularly to it. I think a person's heart and time can be extremely involved in indirect service, even when it's "only" giving money.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: [QB] What I understand is that one does not give to the poor etc, to curry favor with Jesus. One does so because the hungry should not be hungry, the down trodden need support.
Jesus doesn't tell us to heal the sick because it shows your good enough to go to heaven. He says heal the sick because the sick are good enough to be healed.
I'm not sure that this last part is true. Remember the young ruler: Christ told him that he lacked one thing in order to be perfect, and told him to give away all that he had to the poor, and come and follow him.
For Mormons, Christ's primary goal was not to end earthly suffering. Instead, his aim was to sacrifice himself for us to enable us to repent and be forgiven, so that we could return to God. The idea, I think, is not just to make the world a better place, but to make individuals better people. That's done best through having us perform the same deeds he performed-- comforting/healing the sick, teaching the sinner, correcting the hypocrite. While providing for the poor is an absolutely essential part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, a large component of charity is to make those who provide the assistance more Christ-like.
quote:It doesn't matter to the widow or orphan where their support comes from, as long as it has no strings attached. Those strings could be "Vote for me" or "Come to my church." That makes them not charity but bribery.
Agreed-- true charity comes without strings.
quote:So frankly, what ever is most efficient at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick is what is important and what Jesus would do. If that means taxing the wealthy to end the suffering of others, he would do so.
I'm afraid I can't agree on a scriptural or religious level (though on a political and social level, I agree: taxes should be raised and more services provided to those in need).
Can you show why you believe this to be true using scriptural or religious sources?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Scott: I've quoted this verse when talking to you before, actually, but look at why the Lord says he destroyed the city of Sodom:
quote:Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
(Ezekiel 16)
You'll note from Genesis he didn't just strike individuals in Sodom, he destroyed the whole frikkin' city with fire and brimstone.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Actually, if you randomly open your Bible to any place in the latter half of the Old Testament (the Major and Minor Prophets) you'll have a hard time finding a page where the nation of Israel isn't being blasted for their neglect of the poor, hungry, widows, orphans, and aliens. Not individuals in Israel, mind you, the nation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott: I've quoted this verse when talking to you before, actually, but look at why the Lord says he destroyed the city of Sodom
Have you? I don't remember.
I agree that a nation that neglects its duties to the poor is under divine condemnation. I'm not sure that there's specific biblical proof that says that aid is to be handled by the government rather than by individuals, or heck, by communities of like-minded individuals volunteering funds.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The fact that in ancient Israel the church and state were more or less congruous muddies the water to some extent. (though even then, there were distinct royal and ecclesiastical power structures. The king didn't speak for God - indeed, a man of God had the authority to rebuke a king (like Nathaniel with David), though depending on the king, that didn't always work out too well for the Prophet...)
It was awhile ago, come to think of it, I may have just mentioned Ezekiel in passing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The fact that in ancient Israel the church and state were more or less congruous muddies the water to some extent.
It doesn't really muddy the issue much since the association of a nation with a political state is something very modern (last two centuries at most). I mostly agree with Scott on this. It's a misreading of the Bible if we assume nation to mean "government".
I do agree with you that the scriptures support the idea that communities have a collective responsibility to care for the poor and the sick. To me, this is only logical since poverty is social problem, not just a personal problem. As individuals, we can give to the poor but it takes a community to address the underlying social, political, economic and cultural factors that perpetuate poverty.
I think there are many ways, at least in theory, that a "People" can fulfill that collective responsibility. But in modern American society, the government is the only organization to which we all belong. It is the only body through which we can act 'As the American People'. If we do not support Government involvement (of some kind) in caring for each other, I think we are shirking that collective responsibility. I think there is plenty of room for discussing what might be the most effective type of government involvement -- but I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:=I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
Why?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I do agree with you that the scriptures support the idea that communities have a collective responsibility to care for the poor and the sick. To me, this is only logical since poverty is social problem, not just a personal problem. As individuals, we can give to the poor but it takes a community to address the underlying social, political, economic and cultural factors that perpetuate poverty.
Rabbit, that reminds me of the famous quotation of Dom Helder Camara, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:=I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
Why?
In a modern secular democracy like the USA, what other options are there for us to act "as a People". Christians aren't simply supposed to want to be righteous individuals, we are supposed to want to build righteous communities and nations. A righteous community is not the same thing as a group of righteous individuals. Most sins, such murder, adultery, theft, or lying, are committed by individuals. The sin of neglecting the needy is something the scriptures ascribe to communities. Righteous communities work together to care for the poor.
The only organization that represents the American People as a whole is the US government. It is the only avenue we have to act deliberately as a people rather than as individuals. Choosing to act together deliberately "As one People" to help the poor does something that could not be accomplished simply by everyone acting independently on the problem.
Let me make a comparison -- Why are we encouraged to have family prayer? If all the members of the family pray individually, why should a family need to pray together?
[ February 13, 2012, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:=I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
Why?
Because as a democratic nation, we *are* the government, and as such assume responsibility for it's actions in a way that wouldn't really be applicable to a theocracy or monarchy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I agree that a nation that neglects its duties to the poor is under divine condemnation. I'm not sure that there's specific biblical proof that says that aid is to be handled by the government rather than by individuals, or heck, by communities of like-minded individuals volunteering funds.
If God will hold the nation accountable for the charity, or lack thereof, of it's people, doesn't that amount to a de facto requirement that the nation-somehow-see to it sufficient charity of the right type is being done? The one seems to follow pretty plainly from the other: if a group is to be punished (quite badly, if severe enough) for failure, doesn't it have a duty-if only for preservation-to see that success is achieved?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If God will hold the nation accountable for the charity, or lack thereof, of it's people, doesn't that amount to a de facto requirement that the nation-somehow-see to it sufficient charity of the right type is being done?
Are you suggesting that religious prerogatives be enacted into law?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Scott, are you arguing in good faith here? I'll believe you if you say yes, but the question occurs to me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Scott, are you arguing in good faith here?
Yes.
quote:I'll believe you if you say yes, but the question occurs to me.
For future reference, when I'm not arguing in good faith, I'm a lot more flippant.
quote:Why are we encouraged to have family prayer? If all the members of the family pray individually, why should a family need to pray together?
Again, the question for me is not whether the gospel supports a culture that participates in alleviating the needs of the poor. Obviously, it does. I question whether the gospel supports the idea of forced charitable giving.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Scott, are you arguing in good faith here?
Yes.
Fair enough.
quote:For future reference, when I'm not arguing in good faith, I'm a lot more flippant.
: laugh : Noted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If God will hold the nation accountable for the charity, or lack thereof, of it's people, doesn't that amount to a de facto requirement that the nation-somehow-see to it sufficient charity of the right type is being done?
Are you suggesting that religious prerogatives be enacted into law?
I think that, in a multi-cultural, multi-religion society we can not in fairness enact into law specific religious beliefs unless they can be demonstrated to provide an objective secular good. I don't think that this is a contradiction to believing that our creating a more equitable society, one which makes caring for the sick and the poor a priority (in addition to being a demonstrable good) would make Jesus happy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
"an objective secular good"
What is that? It seems like you're arguing for moral abolutism but entirely within a secualr context which strikes me as a difficult thing to have (and unlikely that the country would agree with). Otherwise the only possible definition I see is based on majority vote (e.g. we all agree murder is bad) in which case secular or religious aren't meaningful distinctions anymore.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Secular" good was poor phrasing. I wasn't happy with it. I mean to indicate a good that isn't tied to any particular religion. Religion X may consider that blue belly buttons please the gods but cannot demonstrate how that is helpful to society in general.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Making my question more general then: how would you determine: "helpful to society in general."? Seems like to determine that you still need a majority vote (which again removed the distinction between religious and secular motivation). Any other solution I can think of is either some variation on that (i.e. our current representitive democracy in a sense lets a small group of people, legistlators and judges, determine it but since they're voted in it's close enough to the same) or is no longer within the bounds of the consitution.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, I have very little interest in parsing "good". I understand that such conversations are interesting to some on a philosophical level and that is cool. I find them tiresome.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
But here, isn't figuring out what "good" means more than just a intellectual exercise? I mean if you want to use it to determine the entirety of legal applicability then shouldn't you nail down what you mean by "good"?
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Obviously, it does. I question whether the gospel supports the idea of forced charitable giving.
I think its wrong to equate taxes that support programs to reduce poverty as "forced charitable giving". It's no more valid than equating taxes that are used to bomb Afghan villages to "forcing people to murder"?
Do you think it is acceptable for society to force people to pay taxes to support police departments, prisons, and courts? Is it acceptable to force people to pay taxes to support roads, mass transit, schools, libraries, parks, or environmental regulations? Is it acceptable to force people to pay for the military, space exploration or medical research? No matter what government program you pick, there are some people who will be opposed to it. If its wrong for societies to force people to participate in stuff they don't like, then all taxes are wrong.
But that attitude is not what the gospel teaches. The gospel acknowledges the legitimacy of civil governments. It teaches that governments have a responsibility to make and administer laws for the good of society. To fulfill that responsibility, governments need resources and Jesus acknowledged that forcing people to pay taxes was a legitimate means for governments to get those resources.
In a secular democratic society, civil government is the only means by which all the people work together to solve mutual problems and achieve shared goals. As members of a democratic society, when we support or oppose a government initiative, we are deciding what goals we believe all "our people" should work together to achieve. The gospel teaches us that helping the needy is a community responsibility. Christians therefore have a moral obligation to influence their communities to make helping the needy a shared community goal. In a secular democratic community, that means involving the government because the government is the only way the whole community cooperates in anything.
That does not equate to blanket support for enacting religious prerogatives into law. Our communities need to balance the value of individual freedom against the virtue of cooperating. I think that balance is achieved by involving the government only when cooperation is important to achieving a righteous goal.
There are many righteous goals which can be achieved through individual effort. For example, being honest is a goal that individuals can achieve alone. I don't need any ones cooperation in order to be a faithful spouse. I can worship God even if no one else does. If everyone in our society decided individually to never have an abortion, there would be no abortions. No cooperative effort would be needed to stop them.
But there are other righteous goals which require cooperative action to achieve, even if everyone fully supports them. I think the gospel teaches that eliminating poverty is that kind of goal.
I think there is plenty of room for Christians to disagree about what kind of government programs would be most effective for helping reduce poverty, but if they are arguing that the government should not play any role -- I don't think they understand the Christian gospel.
[ February 14, 2012, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Involving the ability of the government to tax its citizens means "cooperation" is gone. It's not cooperation any longer-- it's compliance.
I'll note the following (Mormon specific): Among the people of Zeniff, after King Noah was killed and King Limhi's people subjugated by the Lamanites, there were many widows and orphans in the land. King Limhi-- who was described as a righteous king-- commanded that all his people give of their substance to support those who stood in need. (This is in Mosiah 21)
So...there is scriptural basis for government enforced charity (at least for Mormons; I can't think of a similar thing occurring in the Bible).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Involving the ability of the government to tax its citizens means "cooperation" is gone. It's not cooperation any longer-- it's compliance.
`fraid not. We're part of a representative system that we've all agreed, upon continued adulthood, to participate in. Part of that system necessitates not every decision going our way-and still going along with it. It's still cooperation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Involving the ability of the government to tax its citizens means "cooperation" is gone. It's not cooperation any longer-- it's compliance.
Nonsense. Cooperate means simply "to work together". It does not require that the action be voluntary. We use the word "cooperative" to describe the function of things like molecules where volition doesn't even exist.
People invented governments because they found that some desirable goals could not be achieved unless everyone worked together. Some of those goals, such as "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" have been clearly articulated by people who have founded governments.
Because people see the importance of everyone working together toward such goals, we have given governments the power to force people to do things like respect the property of others and pay taxes. Cooperation is not gone because the government has the power to force those who won't volunteer -- cooperation thrives when good governments reward those who work toward our shared goals and punish those who don't.
Unless you are arguing that governments shouldn't exist at all, the only question is what goals everyone in society should be required to share.
[ February 14, 2012, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Involving the ability of the government to tax its citizens means "cooperation" is gone. It's not cooperation any longer-- it's compliance.
`fraid not. We're part of a representative system that we've all agreed, upon continued adulthood, to participate in. Part of that system necessitates not every decision going our way-and still going along with it. It's still cooperation.
We don't have a choice about whether or not to go along with it. Can you explain how this negation still somehow adds up to "cooperation?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We don't have a choice about whether or not to go along with it. Can you explain how this negation still somehow adds up to "cooperation?"
We have a choice about whether or not the 'it' decision gets made, and we also have (speaking in general here) the decision to stay in the place where 'it' happens.
Here's your question put in a different way: how can a representative system of government, which we all have a stake in and agree to live with, be called compulsory when we're the ones doing the 'compelling'?
(Obviously in practical terms, government of course has the power to compel obedience. It has to-we give it that power. But those individuals who don't like being 'compelled' in that way are free to leave, or work to get the laws changed to the limit of their peaceful efforts.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
People who disagree can always go Galt on us, but be prepared to forfeit citizenship, property, bank accounts, businesses, intellectual property rights, savings etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: People who disagree can always go Galt on us, but be prepared to forfeit citizenship, property, bank accounts, businesses, intellectual property rights, savings etc.
All of which only exist because of the cooperation of the rest of us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We don't have a choice about whether or not to go along with it. Can you explain how this negation still somehow adds up to "cooperation?"
I thought of a different, hopefully more direct and instructive (as to what I'm trying to say, I mean) way of responding to this: we agree to be compelled sometimes, in our system. So while we are compelled, we've also agreed to it. So which is negated? The agreement because we're later compelled, or the compulsion because we initially agreed?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We don't have a choice about whether or not to go along with it. Can you explain how this negation still somehow adds up to "cooperation?"
Why do you think it isn't "cooperation" unless we have a choice? Cooperation just means working together.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:how can a representative system of government, which we all have a stake in and agree to live with, be called compulsory when we're the ones doing the 'compelling'?
There's a great deal of question about exactly how representative our democracy is at the moment.
(Certainly, the citizens of Washington D.C. disagree with you, Rakeesh... )
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:how can a representative system of government, which we all have a stake in and agree to live with, be called compulsory when we're the ones doing the 'compelling'?
There's a great deal of question about exactly how representative our democracy is at the moment.
(Certainly, the citizens of Washington D.C. disagree with you, Rakeesh... )
If Christian individuals couldn't have any influence over what their government did, then wouldn't the entire discussion of what Christianity teaches about the proper role of government be absurd?
We might as well be discussing the what Christianity teaches about the proper role of gravitational forces.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:We don't have a choice about whether or not to go along with it. Can you explain how this negation still somehow adds up to "cooperation?"
I thought of a different, hopefully more direct and instructive (as to what I'm trying to say, I mean) way of responding to this: we agree to be compelled sometimes, in our system. So while we are compelled, we've also agreed to it. So which is negated? The agreement because we're later compelled, or the compulsion because we initially agreed?
None of that equals cooperation. I'm afraid that I prefer the nuance that Rabbit seems to discount: cooperation (at least among human beings) involves a certain degree of intention.
:shrug:
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If Christian individuals couldn't have any influence over what their government did, then wouldn't the entire discussion of what Christianity teaches about the proper role of government be absurd?
What teachings, exactly? Besides Romans 12 and 'Render unto Caesar,' what scriptural teachings do you believe support your point of view in this matter?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
To be a citizen (or resident, I suppose) of the United States is to agree to cooperate with the rules agreed upon by the majority of the people. If you find those rules unethical, you of course have options.
You can work to convince others to change their minds on the subject (or run for office yourself), you can practice civil disobedience, you can emigrate to another country.
Cooperation by it's very nature requires compromise. You're not going to find another human being who shares your exact values, even in friendship or marriage you're going to have to compromise some of them to cooperate. If you only cooperated with people who had the exact same views and desires as you, it wouldn't be cooperation, it'd be doing whatever you want.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Should we not compel with laws against murder or theft because we should only be doing those things "cooperatively"?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I know there is this great Libertarian tradition that taxation is a blight on freedom, and I know that the worst form of debate is a personal attack, but still...
When my son was 6 years old he would cry, "That's not fair."
I would say, "Why isn't that fair."
And he would reply "Because I don't wanna."
I hear a lot of this echoed in the debate about "forced charity."
They say, "Forcing me to pay taxes is not fair."
Usually long tedious arguments are made about fairness and duty and responsibility and general welfare.
And the response is, "Its just not fair."
Taxes for defense are fair. Taxes for roads, police, bridges, and anything the complainer actually uses seem to be fair. But taxes that help other people, that the person does not get an obvious Return On Investment on, well those are just not fair.
Why do I imagine that if instead, we were to ask, "Why is it not fair?" the answer will be "Because I don't wanna."
I am sorry, but I can't help but read any "taxation is slavery" argument on the internet without hearing it in my head, sounding like its coming from a whiny 6 year old.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:None of that equals cooperation. I'm afraid that I prefer the nuance that Rabbit seems to discount: cooperation (at least among human beings) involves a certain degree of intention.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics. If you think cooperation has to include willingness, then find me a word that just means working together -- regardless of how people feel about it. Sometimes it matters why people do things, but sometimes it really only matters that they get done. Some goals cannot be achieved unless people work together.
Even in those instances when it matters whether or not people participate willingly, human nature is such that people are more willing when they believe others are also doing their fair share. Human nature is such that people are more willing to cooperate when they believe that there is a penalty for being uncooperative.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If Christian individuals couldn't have any influence over what their government did, then wouldn't the entire discussion of what Christianity teaches about the proper role of government be absurd?
What teachings, exactly? Besides Romans 12 and 'Render unto Caesar,' what scriptural teachings do you believe support your point of view in this matter?
You've already been given many scriptural references and even given a few yourself. Others have gone to great lengths to explain why they believe the scriptures support for their beliefs. Continuing to ask this question suggests you aren't discussing this in good faith.
And it really doesn't help that the question is utterly irrelevant to my point which you quoted. Are we or are we not discussing what (if anything) Christianity says about the proper role of government? Do you think that discussion would have any relevance if Christian individuals had no more influence on civil laws than they do on the laws of physics?
Maybe you'd be interested in discussing whether or not Christians should be working to change the laws of Thermodynamics. I'm not. Ought implies can. Discussing whether or not people have some moral obligation to do the impossible is absurd.
Every argument I've made in this thread presupposes that people have some ability to influence what their government does.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I am sorry, but I can't help but read any "taxation is slavery" argument on the internet without hearing it in my head, sounding like its coming from a whiny 6 year old.
Agreed. I don't think anyone in this thread has really been making that argument, but I agree that people who do sound like whiny children.
I never hear those people arguing that pacifists shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the military -- even though its obviously worse to force people to do something they think is immoral than it is to force them to do something they just don't like. They want a military to protect them and their stuff and they know we could never support a modern high tech army with strictly voluntary contributions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You've already been given many scriptural references and even given a few yourself. Others have gone to great lengths to explain why they believe the scriptures support for their beliefs. Continuing to ask this question suggests you aren't discussing this in good faith.
:amused:
I don't think the scriptures provided answer the question about government involvement in charitable giving. I've explained why, I think.
This does not indicate that I'm not discussing this in good faith; it indicates that I disagree with their reasoning.
Do you understand the difference?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott, What indicates that you aren't arguing in good faith is not that you continue to disagree, it's that keep repeating the same question, ignoring the answers people have given already and using that same question as a response when it's irrelevant to what was said. Do you understand the difference?
[ February 15, 2012, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:None of that equals cooperation. I'm afraid that I prefer the nuance that Rabbit seems to discount: cooperation (at least among human beings) involves a certain degree of intention.
:shrug:
Again, we agree by our general long-term living here that not every decision will go our way. Real problems and hang-ups in certain areas, such as Washington DC (though why do you think they won't attain statehood now?) don't change the larger picture, nor do complaints about non-representation when voter turnout is so uniformly low.
There isn't a person alive in the US who doesn't know, "Sometimes tax policy isn't going to go my way. Often, even." So they may vote for the Tea Party or whoever they like, or ultimately vote with their feet, or run for office themselves, if they object to group cooperation.
On an unrelated note, I'm not sure how 'render to Caesar' is not to be read as an endorsement of organized, national government in general and taxation in particular. Non-representative taxation, no less.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On an unrelated note, I'm not sure how 'render to Caesar' is not to be read as an endorsement of organized, national government in general and taxation in particular.
Well, one could argue that "render unto God what is God's" leaves very little for Caesar.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Scott, What indicates that you aren't arguing in good faith is not that you continue to disagree, it's that keep asking repeating the same question, ignoring the answers people have given already and using that same question as a response when it's irrelevant to what was said. Do you understand the difference?
I think I've addressed pretty much everyone-- or others have shared their input and that has sufficed for me (as in Hobbes' questions to kmboots). Where there have been questions asked directly to me, I think I've responded. It's possible I haven't responded to the satisfaction of the individual; in such a case, I'd expect them to say so.
We have recent history of a political party coopting Christianity for their own cynical purposes. In many parts of the country, saying, "I'm a Christian," is cognate for "I'm a Republican," and "I'm a capitalist." The ignorance of Christians about their own religion, and the slick marketing efforts of GOP propagandizers have effectively altered the perception of what the Bible actually teaches. (Ditto the Book of Mormon)
I've no inclination to see that effect furthered by the Democratic Party for their own political ends. Thus, sticking point: there is little scriptural support for the idea that states should be empowered to enforce charitable giving through taxation (as recently hawked by President Obama). There is much scriptural support for individual and collective giving, with intention and agency fully operative.
There are plenty of social and economic reasons for raising taxes in order to better fund programs that assist the needy-- let the Democrats, or whomever, use those rather than false appeals to scripture.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:On an unrelated note, I'm not sure how 'render to Caesar' is not to be read as an endorsement of organized, national government in general and taxation in particular.
Well, one could argue that "render unto God what is God's" leaves very little for Caesar.
Seriously. It's kind of a non-answer.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:On an unrelated note, I'm not sure how 'render to Caesar' is not to be read as an endorsement of organized, national government in general and taxation in particular.
Well, one could argue that "render unto God what is God's" leaves very little for Caesar.
Seriously. It's kind of a non-answer.
And eventually, all that is God's is rendered up to God, no matter what any mere human does to avoid it.
Scott, where I have a difference with your argument is the definition of Charity. Your argument seems to be that government actions that feed the hungry and comfort the poor are acts of charity that you are forced to provide through taxation. You further argue that while the Bible does require you to commits acts of charity, it does not require the Government to commit acts of charity, or to tax you so those acts can be committed.
While others can argue with you about the definition of Taxation being equal to Forced Charity, I would argue on two other counts.
1) The Welfare--feeding, housing, education, and health of the poor--is not a charitable giving. It is an investment, a crime prevention measure, and a "general welfare" issue. The government doesn't feed the poor to be nice to the poor. It does so to better all the people in the community. It feeds the poor not so much to help those who don't pay taxes, but to help the tax payer who doesn't want to trip over starving children, have beggars on every street corner, and muggers in every alley.
2) You read the bible and understand responsibilities of the more fortunate to help the less fortunate. You build a case that Charity is an act that will help you to salvation, that Jesus expects from you.
But later the Bible clearly states that Acts will not get you into heaven. If good deeds won't get you into heaven, while give charity?
An less fortunate reading of the same versus show that those who are ill or hungry are human too. Standard sympathy should never be forgotten. You feed the hungry not for cosmic brownie points or to suffer your way into heaven. You feed the hungry, you give charity, because it is needed.
Do you want a child to go hungry because the only welfare out there was individual charity, and you just didn't realize that particular child was hungry so he got missed? Of course not.
I believe that the most efficient way to answer that need is through the government. There are internal and external checks to limit corruption and bureaucratic mess. Such checks can be deficient in private charitable organizations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, do you understand the difference between, "God says we should do X and that is reason enough to make it law" and, "I think that if we decided to arrange our society to do X God would be pleased"? Was it not clear that I was making the second statement?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Darth_Mauve:
1) I think that more government support should be given to programs that assist the needy. I'm sure I've said this at least twice. What are you trying to argue here?
2)
quote: You read the bible and understand responsibilities of the more fortunate to help the less fortunate. You build a case that Charity is an act that will help you to salvation, that Jesus expects from you.
But later the Bible clearly states that Acts will not get you into heaven. If good deeds won't get you into heaven, while give charity?
Mormons believe that you get to Heaven through the grace of Jesus Christ, and after all that you can do. James says, "show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works." In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Christ clearly delineates who gets to go to heaven: those who work for the betterment and comfort of others.
I'm open to a discussion on this, if you feel it's interesting.
quote:An less fortunate reading of the same versus show that those who are ill or hungry are human too.
Which verses?
quote:Standard sympathy should never be forgotten. You feed the hungry not for cosmic brownie points or to suffer your way into heaven. You feed the hungry, you give charity, because it is needed.
That's one reason to be charitable. I don't have any argument against it. I think that the impetus for charity though, should be love of others (or a sense of duty to God, if you can't manage love), rather than an observed need. Love and duty rarely fail to instruct, whereas observation is more frequently fooled.
quote:I believe that the most efficient way to answer that need is through the government. There are internal and external checks to limit corruption and bureaucratic mess. Such checks can be deficient in private charitable organizations.
Mmmm...I think that there's enough difference between private charities to make a studied response to this charge unfeasible. I know that the current government implementation is riddled with needless bureaucracy and waste. I'm glad it's there, don't get me wrong (and at the risk of repeating myself, I think it should be better funded ). But it's a far cry from being a shining example of mercy, grace, and efficiency.
If you've got numbers that speak to the efficacy of government programs over private charities, I'd be interested in seeing them.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Not really that relevant, perhaps, but I was intrigued by Dana's point about the sheep and goats, since I'd always taken the parable to be about individual rather than collective judgment. It doesn't seem entirely clear cut, though; this commentary, for instance, suggests the Greek indicates an individual judgment is meant:
quote:And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
All the nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) The whole human race; though the word is generally employed in the New Testament to denote Gentiles as distinguished from Jews.
Separate them (αὐτοὺς) Masculine, while the word nations is neuter. Nations are regarded as gathered collectively; but in contemplating the act of separation the Lord regards the individuals.
The sheep from the goats (or kids, so Rev. in margin) "The bald division of men into sheep and goats is, in one sense, so easy as not to be worth performing; and in another sense it is so hard as only to be possible for something with supernatural insight" (John Morley, "Voltaire"). Goats are an appropriate figure, because the goat was regarded as a comparatively worthless animal. Hence the point of the elder son's complaint in the parable of the Prodigal: Not so much as a kid (Luke 15:29). The diminutive (ἐρίφια) expresses contempt.
To the bigger issue, it seems evident that we have a collective obligation to help the poor. I think you can believe that without necessarily believing that government is the best vehicle for doing so, or that it is a proper exercise of government power to tax the citizenry to provide for the needs of the poor and the afflicted. I don't see a persuasive argument made from the scriptures offered, although I think that's mainly because the scriptures originated in a time period in which the proper relation of representative government to religious principle wasn't of particular interest.
I think Scott's questions are valid; I don't see how it's possible to interpret the scriptural record as suggesting that one must necessarily believe Jesus would be pleased with taxes being levied in order to provide social welfare. I personally tend to think he probably would be pleased with most applications of politically compelled welfare provision in the US today. But I also think that he'd be much more concerned with promoting personal and collective acts of voluntary charity, and that he'd be more pleased with us if we spent more of our time, talents, and money directly helping the needy rather than enacting laws to compel everyone else to do so.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Scott, do you understand the difference between, "God says we should do X and that is reason enough to make it law" and, "I think that if we decided to arrange our society to do X God would be pleased"? Was it not clear that I was making the second statement?
I'm unclear what part of this conversation you're referencing. Can you clarify
EDIT: That said:
I'm unclear about how the second phrase intends to use the state's power to arrange society according to the satisfaction of the speaker.
[ February 15, 2012, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am referencing the beginning of our conversation. Where Jeff implied that Jesus would be bothered by our raising taxes and you challenged my suggestion that, depending on how the taxes were used, Jesus would be pleased.
The second phrase doesn't address how one would use the state's power to arrange society. Societies arranged themselves by different methods.
I think Jesus would be pleased with however the poor and sick are helped.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think Jesus would be pleased with however the poor and sick are helped.
Not only do I doubt He would, I doubt that you really believe that. Consider again my example (from another thread) of compulsory harvesting of "extraneous" kidneys. The sick are undeniably helped, they've got a new lease on life. But do you honestly feel Christ would be pleased with that society, or that such a society would be considered just and good in God's eyes?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think Jesus would be pleased with however the poor and sick are helped
Generally, I think you're correct.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honest to God, SenojRetep do you really think that that my comment was intended to be more broadly read than the conversation about individual charity vs community charity warrants or are you just being a jerk?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I think Jesus would be pleased with however the poor and sick are helped
Generally, I think you're correct.
So why did you take exception to my comment in the first place?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think Jesus would be pleased with however the poor and sick are helped.
Not only do I doubt He would, I doubt that you really believe that. Consider again my example (from another thread) of compulsory harvesting of "extraneous" kidneys. The sick are undeniably helped, they've got a new lease on life. But do you honestly feel Christ would be pleased with that society, or that such a society would be considered just and good in God's eyes?
Eh...I'm not sure it's valid to bring in such an extreme analogy to what was (IMO) a generalized statement from kmboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for putting that more nicely than I did, Scott. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Kate-
Sorry I took your statement over-literally. What did you actually mean, because I'm obviously unclear.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:On an unrelated note, I'm not sure how 'render to Caesar' is not to be read as an endorsement of organized, national government in general and taxation in particular.
Well, one could argue that "render unto God what is God's" leaves very little for Caesar.
Seriously. It's kind of a non-answer.
Especially when you consider that the question wasn't about paying taxes to a government one recognizes as legitimate but to what extent religious Jews should become entangled with an occupying pagan power and to what extent they should resist. The question and answer have diddly-squat to do with tax policy in general.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I think Jesus would be pleased with however the poor and sick are helped
Generally, I think you're correct.
So why did you take exception to my comment in the first place?
Because you took it out of the sphere of general 'Things God would like' and began applying it to political systems via taxation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenjoRetep,
Sorry, I was over cranky. I meant that helping the charities is something that we should do as individuals, as communities, and as nations.
ETA:
Scott, I was responding to Jeff's comment. But, yes, I think that a more equitable distribution of wealth would make Jesus happy. I think I have provided scriptural and theological support for that.
I don't think, however, that making Jesus happy, is necessarily the business of the state, however.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But, yes, I think that a more equitable distribution of wealth would make Jesus happy. I think I have provided scriptural and theological support for that.
I think you've done a good job of providing theological support from a Catholic point of view; scriptural support I'm not so sure about. I read a bit of Mater et Magistra this morning, and saw a lot of references back to Pope Leo's document; not so many back to the Gospels.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Theological support from a Catholic point of view would seem to me to be plenty support for why I believe as I do. I don't suggest that it is compelling for non-Catholics. Scripture is only one part of the basis for Catholic doctrine. We are not so much "sola scriptura" kind of folk.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Because you took it out of the sphere of general 'Things God would like' and began applying it to political systems via taxation.
I am uncomfortable with it used as a justification. (which IMO should be secular) It works just fine as a motivation, though.
Consider the abolitionists of the 1840s and 50s who were, in many cases, religious fanatics. Yet the abolition of slavery was not legislating religion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
For the benefit of clarity, it might be useful to reference President Obama's actual comments at the National Prayer Breakfast rather than Jeff's summarization of them. Just so we aren't attributing attitudes to the President that aren't evident in the text.
He lists several potentially controversial policies (healthcare reform, banking regulation, increased progressivity in taxation, foreign military intervention), and states that he's pursued these policies, at least in part, because of scripturally-based values ("love thy neighbor as thyself", "for unto whom much is given much is required", "I am my brother's keeper", "care for the least of these"). He says at one point, "We can't leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries." In another "I must try -- imperfectly, but I must try -- to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation."
Later, he says "[W]e can earnestly seek to see these values lived out in our politics and our policies, and we can earnestly disagree on the best way to achieve these values. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program."" And again, "Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical...people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other."
So, anyway, if I were attempting to summarize his statement, it would be that our individual political decisions, whether as an ordinary citizen or as a President, should be informed by personal values, including religious values, but that we shouldn't assume, just because we've based our political opinions in part upon religious beliefs, that others with similar religious beliefs must necessarily come to identical political conclusions, or that the most important aspect of a political policy is whether it can be scripturally justified.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Theological support from a Catholic point of view would seem to me to be plenty support for why I believe as I do.
Are you going to try to legislate using that point of view as justification?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenojRetep, And I disagree with Jeff, that Jesus would have a problem with that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Theological support from a Catholic point of view would seem to me to be plenty support for why I believe as I do.
Are you going to try to legislate using that point of view as justification?
Are you asking if I think that legislation should be based on Catholic doctrine? Really? ETA: Scott, this is why I think you are not really reading what I am writing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
EDITED, because there's something about my response that doesn't sit right with me.
It's bothering me enough that I'm just going to remove it, even if I can't quite put my finger on what the problem is.
I *think* that my question to kmboots isn't quite fair to her or her point of view after all. So...retracted.
And my apologies, kmboots.
[ February 15, 2012, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't as far as I am concerned have anything for which to apologize. But thanks.
I am getting the impression that you got the impression that either I or the President or both think that "making Jesus happy" is sufficient reason to legislate something. I think that is dangerous.
However, when we do right things - individually or as a community - I think that makes Jesus happy. Result not motivation. I think that a more equitable distribution of resources, especially in favor of the poor and sick is a Jesus happy-making thing to do (which was all I was saying to Jeff) and provided scriptural and theological support for why I think so.
Is that clearer?
And my apologies for getting so cranky.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Scott, What indicates that you aren't arguing in good faith is not that you continue to disagree, it's that keep asking repeating the same question, ignoring the answers people have given already and using that same question as a response when it's irrelevant to what was said. Do you understand the difference?
I think I've addressed pretty much everyone-- or others have shared their input and that has sufficed for me (as in Hobbes' questions to kmboots). Where there have been questions asked directly to me, I think I've responded. It's possible I haven't responded to the satisfaction of the individual; in such a case, I'd expect them to say so.
I've asked you several questions that you've never responded to so by making this claim you've just reinforced my perception that you aren't actually even reading my posts let alone trying to understand what they said. If you haven't made a reasonable effort to understand someones responses, I don't think you are arguing in good faith.
quote:We have recent history of a political party coopting Christianity for their own cynical purposes. In many parts of the country, saying, "I'm a Christian," is cognate for "I'm a Republican," and "I'm a capitalist." The ignorance of Christians about their own religion, and the slick marketing efforts of GOP propagandizers have effectively altered the perception of what the Bible actually teaches. (Ditto the Book of Mormon)
I've no inclination to see that effect furthered by the Democratic Party for their own political ends.
Once again, this comment seems to be a knee jerk response against something nobody, including Obama, has actually said.
What I said, exactly, was this.
quote:If we do not support Government involvement (of some kind) in caring for each other, I think we are shirking that collective responsibility. I think there is plenty of room for discussing what might be the most effective type of government involvement -- but I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
That isn't an argument that's being used to support a particular partisan policy. I was simply saying that concern for the well being of the most vulnerable members of society, is something that should influence the way Christians participate in government.
Your sole response was a terse "why?"
Well the most obvious answer to that is because all government policies affect people. That means that ethical people, of any stripe, should be concerned about how policies affect everyone, not just themselves. But for Christians, the obligation goes beyond that. The gospel teaches that we have a special obligation to care for and about the most vulnerable members of society, the poor, the sick, the very young and the very old. The gospel elevates our obligation to help the needy above the more general obligation to help everyone. Those teachings are supposed to inform ALL the aspects of our lives. It's not something we can check at the door when we participate in secular life. If we aren't considering that obligation when we participate in government, we are shirking that obligation. That isn't an argument that supports any particular political agenda, policy or party. I'm simply saying Christian teachings about our moral obligations to the needy should influence the way Christians participate in all aspects of our communities -- including government.
quote:I've no inclination to see that effect furthered by the Democratic Party for their own political ends. Thus, sticking point: there is little scriptural support for the idea that states should be empowered to enforce charitable giving through taxation (as recently hawked by President Obama). There is much scriptural support for individual and collective giving, with intention and agency fully operative.
There are plenty of social and economic reasons for raising taxes in order to better fund programs that assist the needy-- let the Democrats, or whomever, use those rather than false appeals to scripture. [/QB]
I understand the reasoning, but I think your conclusion is flawed. It is precisely because Christianity has been hijacked by GOP propaganda machine that people who feel inspired by Christian teachings to work against the GOP agenda need to speak about what inspires them. It's not just about winning political battles. It's about defending our faith. People need to be reminded that Christianity is about far more than abortion, sexual morality and protecting the nuclear family.
I think if you actually read the Obama speech that Jeff C was talking about, you'd see that this is what he's doing. In fact he repeatedly says that he isn't arguing that people should support his policies because Jesus said so. They should support them the kinds of social and economic reasons you mention. But he wasn't speaking at a campaign rally -- he was speaking at a National Prayer breakfast. So he augments those broad political arguments, with a personal perspective about on how his understanding of Christianity influences him as he makes political decisions. Then he calls other people of faith to use the values they have learned through their faith when they participate in government.
[ February 17, 2012, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There is much scriptural support for individual and collective giving, with intention and agency fully operative.
Scott, Can you please give examples where the scriptures support that collective efforts to help the poor should be "with intention and agency fully operative"?
The only scripture that has been cited here, thus far, that says anything about whether or not community efforts to help the poor should be voluntary or compulsory, is the one you cited from the Book of Mormon, which supports the opposite position from the one you have taken. Are there other scriptural references which indicate community efforts should be voluntary.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I've asked you several questions that you've never responded to
I've looked through the thread and I don't see evidence for this. There have been times where you've asked questions that I thought I answered by referring back to the topic we're discussing (for example, your analogy about family prayer I answered by stating that it was not the principle (charitable giving) I had a problem with, but the enforcement of the principle by state authority).
If you'll specify which questions you think I haven't answered, I'll do my best to do so.
quote: If you haven't made a reasonable effort to understand someones responses, I don't think you are arguing in good faith.
How do you go about gauging someone else's "reasonable effort to understand someone's responses"?
quote:I think if you actually read the Obama speech that Jeff C was talking about, you'd see that this is what he's doing. In fact he repeatedly says that he isn't arguing that people should support his policies because Jesus said so. They should support them the kinds of social and economic reasons you mention. But he wasn't speaking at a campaign rally -- he was speaking at a National Prayer breakfast. So he augments those broad political arguments, with a personal perspective about on how his understanding of Christianity influences him as he makes political decisions. Then he calls other people of faith to use the values they have learned through their faith when they participate in government.
It's true. When I first heard the president's comments (out of context, flipping through the channels), I was taken aback. When they were brought up here, I thought I'd explore the topic a bit.
I'm not sure I trust the language entirely, but yeah-- definitely I'll be getting the whole story next time.
quote:Can you please give examples where the scriptures support that collective efforts to help the poor should be "with intention and agency fully operative"?
Sure:
D&C 58:26-29-- Not meet to be commanded in all things. Mosiah 4:21-25 Alma 1-- Describes the law of consecration in use among members of a community as opposed to members of society (despite the society's being governed by members of the Church-- specifically, the high priest) D&C 42:30-34-- Describes the consecration of personal belongings to the church.
quote:The only scripture that has been cited here, thus far, that says anything about whether or not community efforts to help the poor should be voluntary or compulsory, is the one you cited from the Book of Mormon, which supports the opposite position from the one you have taken.
I assume when you say "here" you mean "scriptures regarding the topic of collecting taxes to pay for welfare services" and not "there have been no scriptures referred to at all in this thread."
Yeah-- I remembered that particular verse from my reading in the BoM from a while ago. I referred to it because to do so seemed an honest and open thing to do, given the discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:D&C 58:26-29-- Not meet to be commanded in all things.
Yes, but clearly we are commanded in some things and caring for the poor is one of them. While the scriptures are clear on the importance of individual agency, they are also quite clear (for example D&C 134 and Romans 13) that civil governments do have the right to compel us to do certain things, like pay taxes. There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
quote:Mosiah 4:21-25
I don't see anything in Mosiah 4:21-25 that addresses community efforts to aid the poor. Nor do these verses say anything regarding whether or not its justifiable to compel people to participate in efforts to help the poor. It is clear that people should desire to help. That does not in imply anything about whether they should be forced to help if they don't want to.
quote:Alma 1-- Describes the law of consecration in use among members of a community as opposed to members of society (despite the society's being governed by members of the Church-- specifically, the high priest) D&C 42:30-34-- Describes the consecration of personal belongings to the church.
There are several other places in the scriptures (Acts, Moses, 4th Nephi) that describe followers of Christ living the law of consecration. Where there is enough detail to tell, these are all voluntary. I will agree that there is no indication in scripture that people should be legally required to enter into the law of consecration. But the law of consecration goes far beyond anything being proposed as law in this country.
There are examples in scripture where people are legally compelled to give to the poor. You mentioned the example in the Book of Mormon. The law of Moses also required people to pay a tithe. In every 3rd and 6th year a tithe was paid to assist the needy. As I understand it, in ancient Israel the tithe played a similar role to taxes in modern societies and Levites has the legal authority to collect the tithes. Offerings were to be given voluntarily, but tithes were legally required. On average, the Law of Moses required people to give 3.33% of their increase to the poor.
As for your assertion that the people in the Book of Mormon were "governed" by the high priest -- you are oversimplifying the case. The people were governed by an established code of law and judged by Alma, the high priest. Alma did not have the ability to make laws. So his example can not be used to tell us much about how gospel teachings should influence the kind of laws we make. We are told very little about the laws of that society but it is reported that they were based on the law of Moses. It's entirely possible that the laws that Alma enforced as a judge in Alma 1, included a mandatory tax for the poor for everyone. We don't know. Any opinion on that would be highly speculative and not something I'd use to support the case for or against a "poor tax". I'm just trying to point out the difficulty of interpreting scripture in the way you are trying to do.
The simple fact is that there are no examples of democratic societies in ancient scripture. There are no examples in those scriptures where righteous people lived in secular societies where they could influence the civil laws. As a result, we are highly unlikely to find anything directly addressing the question of what kind of laws righteous people should support.
What we can learn from scripture is the kind of attitudes righteous people have toward their communities. And its clear, at least to me, that the scriptures teach us that we have an obligation to be concerned about the well being of all the members of our community and that the needy should be foremost in our concern. There isn't anything to indicate that we should ignore that obligation for any reason, or that we can forget about it when we are participating in secular government.
It's also clear to me, that scriptures acknowledge that civil governments should have the right to force people to do stuff they'd rather not -- like taxes. If God found it acceptable for Rome to tax people to support war and occupation -- it hardly seems likely that He'd be displeased by a democratic country choosing to tax people to help the poor.
quote:I assume when you say "here" you mean "scriptures regarding the topic of collecting taxes to pay for welfare services"
If you assume that, you misunderstand. I meant "scriptures regarding whether community efforts to help the poor should be strictly voluntary".
I've said repeatedly I am not talking about collecting taxes to pay welfare services. I don't think Christianity says anything directly about what tax structures and welfare laws would best serve the poor. I'm saying that Christians have a special obligation to consider how laws, like tax structures and welfare programs, will affect the poor and to promote laws we believe will serve the needy. That doesn't apply exclusively or even primarily to things that are usually considered "welfare". It's a general guiding principle. Almost all kinds of laws, from tax codes, to zoning laws to education to public lands or penal codes, affect the poor differently than the rich. I think that the gospel obligates us to consider that and to work for laws that we believe will protect and aid the needy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
quote:I don't see anything in Mosiah 4:21-25 that addresses community efforts to aid the poor. Nor do these verses say anything regarding whether or not its justifiable to compel people to participate in efforts to help the poor. It is clear that people should desire to help. That does not in imply anything about whether they should be forced to help if they don't want to.
Well, that's partly my point. King Benjamin was both a secular and religious authority. Furthermore, we're told that he was exceptionally righteous. If he did not compel his people to give to the poor-- and it's clear from the text that he's talking about voluntary actions to aid the needy-- it can be derived that a righteous religious or secular leader does not do so either. I'll point out that the people of King Limhi were in dire straights that were completely out of the ordinary for a society; indeed, their situation (not his righteousness, or the righteousness of his people) is given as the impetus for his command to distribute the wealth of the masses to the needy.
quote:The simple fact is that there are no examples of democratic societies in ancient scripture. There are no examples in those scriptures where righteous people lived in secular societies where they could influence the civil laws.
It depends on what you mean by democratic. The leaders of the Nephites, post King Mosiah, were elected by the people (some might say confirmed by the voice of the people, given that there also seemed to be an element of inheritance). Their laws were also assented to by popular vote (thinking here of the conflict between the kingmen and the freemen).
So your evaluation of the governance of the Nephite nation (over which Alma was chief judge) is missing a few elements. What I find apparent in Alma 1 is the distinction between two cultures living in the same society, ruled by the same set of laws: the people of god, who gave freely of their property to each other and who prospered; and the non-believers who persecuted the poor and the needy and the believers. That distinction implies that the government did not provide for the needy. (Which, understandably, does not mean WE should not)
You are correct that the people of the Church lived under the law of Moses; I'm not sure that it's apparent that their society lived under the same law, after the judges took control of things. If the law of Moses had been in force, would the voice of the people have been contemplated in the election of judges? Or in the establishment of law? (See Alma 2) This is not rhetorical-- I'm not actually sure.
The meat of your argument is this:
quote:I've said repeatedly I am not talking about collecting taxes to pay welfare services. I don't think Christianity says anything directly about what tax structures and welfare laws would best serve the poor. I'm saying that Christians have a special obligation to consider how laws, like tax structures and welfare programs, will affect the poor and to promote laws we believe will serve the needy. That doesn't apply exclusively or even primarily to things that are usually considered "welfare". It's a general guiding principle. Almost all kinds of laws, from tax codes, to zoning laws to education to public lands or penal codes, affect the poor differently than the rich. I think that the gospel obligates us to consider that and to work for laws that we believe will protect and aid the needy.
I don't really have much a disagreement here, honestly. But a lot leans on what we're calling "protection" and "aid" (and I recognize that you've touched on this point before). While I agree somewhat with kmboots that God is pleased at societies where the poor are given assistance, I feel that He is better pleased at societies that give assistance to the poor through conscious, intentional effort. I stand by the idea that people helping other people is more in line with God's will than programs helping people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
I suspect she would dispute that redistribution of wealth via representative government taxation of people who are free to vote with ballots or feet could strictly be called compulsion;)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And on that point, there's room to argue.
But that's not what was said in the bit that I responded to.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
Satan's plan was to "destroy the agency of man." I don't think laws can be said to destroy agency. If they did, then all forms of law and government would be contrary to God's plan. But the twelfth Article of Faith says that we believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Why would a civil law that coincides with or supports God's law be part of Satan's plan?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Laws also compel us to obey the commandments not to murder, steal, and give false witness. In some places, there are laws which also compel (or at least encourage) you to keep the Sabbath holy and not to commit adultery. (which is still a crime under the UCMJ, for example) What's the difference between those and laws which compel us obey the commandments to care for the poor, widowed, and orphaned?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: There is no place in scripture which would suggest that civil laws that compel us to keep commandments are contrary to the principle of agency.
Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
Satan's plan was to "destroy the agency of man." I don't think laws can be said to destroy agency. If they did, then all forms of law and government would be contrary to God's plan. But the twelfth Article of Faith says that we believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Why would a civil law that coincides with or supports God's law be part of Satan's plan?
Good point, Jon Boy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I should say that by this point, I'm more than a little out of my depth due to my lack of knowledge about Mormonism. (I've pretty much only read 1 Nephi and a few short passages) So I should be clear that any statements I make refer to Christianity in general. I can't really argue with, or for that matter, understand the last few posts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dogbreath: The Book of Mormon wouldn't be the best place to get a sense of Mormonisms attitudes towards civil law. The governments detailed in it are not democracies, and while some political discussions takes place, it isn't portrayed as relevant to what the United States does.
If you wanted a primer on Mormonism's attitude towards civil government, this thread has linked several excellent quotations. You could also read Joseph Smith's writings on the subject. He often struggled with the idea of building God's kingdom from within the United States. But since he died very young, I don't think he ever really came to a conclusion on the matter, and it's (as this thread clearly demonstrates) a topic still very much open to debate amongst Mormons to say nothing of Christians.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Lucifer's plan was to compel everyone to keep the commandments. In light of this doctrine, how do you justify the statement above?
I think Jon Boy already answered this question. Our agency is not something people can take from each other. I would add that D&C 134 says
quote:We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
That section goes on to say that it is unjust for governments to enact laws regarding faith and worship or laws which foster a particular religious society or proscribe the individual rights of citizens based on their religion. I don't think forcing people to help the needy does either of those things. I can imagine that some particular law intended to help the needy might give advantage to one religion and its members -- but that would be a flaw in a particular law and not a general reason to avoid all government involvement in protecting and helping the needy.
[ February 19, 2012, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:While I agree somewhat with kmboots that God is pleased at societies where the poor are given assistance, I feel that He is better pleased at societies that give assistance to the poor through conscious, intentional effort. I stand by the idea that people helping other people is more in line with God's will than programs helping people.
Scott, You talk about these as though they are mutually exclusive options. But they simply are not. I think this is the source of most of our disagreement. People can help each other individually, participate in programs to help others and support laws that will help others -- all simultaneously. Choosing one does not exclude the others. I don't know about you, but I pay taxes to help the need and I give individually to people in need and I give money and time to my church and other organizations that help the needy. It's not a question of which one is best -- what's best is doing all of the above. Some problems are better addressed by programs, others are better served by individual person to person contact, and others are best met by government. I think God is most pleased when we are doing all of these things as I believe all are necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
You look at the Book of Mormon and say "Alma and King Benjamin encouraged people to give individually, therefore there clearly were no laws compelling them to do so. That simply does not logically follow. In our modern society, we have laws that force people to pay taxes to help the poor. Despite that, we are encouraged to give voluntarily of our time and money to help people both individually and through programs. The question is not whether we should help the poor individually and voluntarily or support government programs to help the poor -- we can a should do both.
[ February 19, 2012, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE] I think God is most pleased when we are doing all of these things as I believe all are necessary if we actually want to solve problems
Amen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I admit, Jon Boy's references seem pretty decisive to me, if that's your source material, but then I'm biased. Laws arrived at by a representative system of government such as ours simply don't destroy or even harm agency. Again, especially when so few people out of the whole even avail themselves of the means to help make the decisions they later complain about.
I still don't understand your opposition to what seems to me to be a pretty straightforward line of thought. Perhaps you could explain what, in your view, is compulsion and what is cooperation, in more detail?
To me the situation we have is this: plenty of people are deeply unhappy with the decisions our government makes, and can enforce by, well, force. However damn near every single one of those people can, if they would actually avail themselves of it, participate in that decision-making process. Very few do, and in fact few do even in the most publicized, spend-money-est elections we've got. So perhaps you're right-perhaps a representative system of government does compel as opposed to utilize cooperation. But I don't think anyone can, after looking at the American political system, say that's what's happening here. Most people aren't even showing up to the meeting where the discussions are held about what decisions to decide on. How then can they complain they don't have a say?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott, I have one more question for you. A few posts back I stated that the primary reason Christians should be concerned about how government policies affect the poor is that government policies do affect the poor. Since you haven't responded to that point, can you tell me what you think of the follow hypothetical.
Four different Christian citizens of the USA all give equally of their time and money, voluntarily, both to needy individuals and to programs that help the poor. In their community, several different government policies are being considered.
1. There is a proposal to change a zoning ordinance that would allow commercial development and luxury housing in an area that is currently low income housing.
2. There is a proposal to change tax codes in a way that would shift the tax burden to different income groups.
3. There is a proposal that would change the way taxes are used for education.
When considering each of these proposals,
Person A supports the proposal they believe will best protect and aid the most vulnerable members of society.
Person B supports the proposal they think will maximize individual freedom, without regard to how it will affect the poor.
Person C supports the proposal they think is most likely to benefit themselves and their family.
Person D doesn't get involved.
Do you think there is anything in the scriptures that would suggest Jesus would be more or less pleased with any of these voters?
[ February 19, 2012, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you think there is anything in the scriptures that would suggest Jesus would be more or less pleased with any of these voters?
I can't think of anything offhand that would indicate that one individual is more in line with God's will than the others (with the exception of Person D).
I have a hard time taking analogies seriously, to be honest with you.
Rakeesh:
I'm not sure I can describe my point of view regarding cooperation any better. Hm...if I can use kmboots, who has (IIRC) spoken about this before, she disagrees with the use of tax money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would say that is compelled to pay for something she apparently dislikes through the fiat of law.
I still support our military action in Afghanistan; at the beginning of the campaign in Iraq, I supported the action there. So although I was compelled to pay the same taxes as kmboots, I would say that in a sense, I cooperated with the war effort (and am thus somewhat responsible for the war there). As I became more aware of the facts involved in the war, I became less cooperative with the idea that it was a just and righteous path. In a sense, I withdrew my cooperation, and was until recently, compelled to support the war.
I don't believe that being compelled to give of your time and money entitles you to any sort of divine approbation. Like I stated early on, compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth. So...while government programs may provide for the needy, I think the Lord does not necessarily count taxes used for the support of the poor as charity. (And I'm not sure that fast offerings, for Mormons, or alms are exactly charity either, now that I think of it. That particular opinion may need to be revised... )
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not sure I can describe my point of view regarding cooperation any better. Hm...if I can use kmboots, who has (IIRC) spoken about this before, she disagrees with the use of tax money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would say that is compelled to pay for something she apparently dislikes through the fiat of law.
I still support our military action in Afghanistan; at the beginning of the campaign in Iraq, I supported the action there. So although I was compelled to pay the same taxes as kmboots, I would say that in a sense, I cooperated with the war effort (and am thus somewhat responsible for the war there). As I became more aware of the facts involved in the war, I became less cooperative with the idea that it was a just and righteous path. In a sense, I withdrew my cooperation, and was until recently, compelled to support the war.
So to clarify, in your point of view, individuals in our society are only ever compelled to obey the law, rather than cooperating with it, yes? That would necessarily go for all laws, even the ones we agree with-the compulsion must still be there, even in cases we agree with.
To take it a step further, is cooperation only possible between people when person or group A asks a specific service of person or group B, and the latter agrees with total knowledge and free will to give that service to the former? It's just...it seems like you're stripping the term 'cooperate' of most of its meaning here. I mean, in your example, you cooperated, sure, with the Iraq war, but that was after the fact. Your indirect service in support of that effort was mandatory.
Can there be cooperation when the outcome is anything other than what a person expected going in to the exchange? Suppose I sign a contract without reading carefully, and it turns out I owe a few hundred extra bucks for, say, lawn care. Will I be able to complain when forking over the money that I am compelled to pay, even though I agreed in advance (unknowingly, but with a chance to have known) to cooperate?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't believe that being compelled to give of your time and money entitles you to any sort of divine approbation.
Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't. I think the primary reason we should help the poor is because the poor suffer when we don't. We should help the needy because we love them as we love ourselves.
quote:Like I stated early on, compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth.
How? You have stated that you initially "cooperated" willingly in the Iraq war effort but when you withdrew your support for the war, you were then compelled. If I understand you correctly, the difference between voluntary cooperation and being compelled was determined solely by your attitude toward the law and not the law itself. How then would a law that required you to help the poor rob you of the opportunity to cooperate willingly? Would you not still be free to pay your taxes willingly instead of grudgingly?
Furthermore, as I said the first time you made this argument, no government has ever been so effective at caring for the needy that individuals never had the opportunity to help each other directly. Certainly our society is not in an danger of this happening any time soon.
If you are concerned about people having the opportunity to choose freely to serve and help each other, then you ought to be more concerned about how poverty robs people of the ability for spiritual growth than how government programs might. Grinding poverty limits peoples ability to help others far more than raising taxes on the well to do.
quote:So...while government programs may provide for the needy, I think the Lord does not necessarily count taxes used for the support of the poor as charity.
I don't think any kind of giving to the poor counts as charity. Charity is the pure love of Christ. It's an attitude of genuine love we have towards our fellow men that permeates all our actions. If love and concern for all our fellow men is not reflected in all parts of our life, including how we participate in government, we don't have charity. How much any particular act "counts as charity" is a determined by our inner motives for performing the act far more than the nature of the act itself. That's true whether the act is volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving to a beggar, paying a fast offering or supporting a government program. If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity. If we are motivated by anything else, it's not.
[ February 19, 2012, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't. I think the primary reason we should help the poor is because the poor suffer when we don't. We should help the needy because we love them as we love ourselves.
I think this is much of the reason why God cares so much about helping the poor, to the point where the Prophets read like a broken record in that respect. It's a reminder that the poor are also human beings, created in the image of God, and that they have worth and dignity. I think it angers God when we, as individuals, communities, and as a nation, ignore the pain and suffering of those less fortunate than us. Nonetheless, the purpose of giving to the poor should be to help the poor, not to score brownie points for ourselves. We act as ambassadors for Christ, and as such are conduits for his love and mercy. Any personal, spiritual gain we receive for the act of giving to the poor is secondary to the primary purpose thereof - that the poor are taken care of.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I believe we should help the poor because it is an economic investment in the future. Cuts down on crime rates, reduces prison expenses and increases gdp when we have more individuals who contribute to society, who can contribute. Giving them food and orange juice doesn't cut it. They need home, skills, education etc.
To which only a national government through its ability to raise and collect taxes and statistical metrics can effectively achieve.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How then would a law that required you to help the poor rob you of the opportunity to cooperate willingly?
That's not what I said. I said that compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth.
My thinking is tied to the idea that only volitional acts are counted toward (personal) good or evil. It's the idea that a gift given grudgingly is the same as a gift not given (in terms of benefit to the giver).
quote:Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't.
Earlier, I noted:
quote: I think that the impetus for charity though, should be love of others (or a sense of duty to God, if you can't manage love), rather than an observed need. Love and duty rarely fail to instruct, whereas observation is more frequently fooled.
Rabbit said:
quote:If you are concerned about people having the opportunity to choose freely to serve and help each other, then you ought to be more concerned about how poverty robs people of the ability for spiritual growth than how government programs might. Grinding poverty limits peoples ability to help others far more than raising taxes on the well to do.
There's some question about the validity of that notion. Note that I still think taxes should be raised on the wealthy in order to provide services for the needy; but at least one study finds that the needy are more likely to assist other people than the rich.
quote: If love and concern for all our fellow men is not reflected in all parts of our life, including how we participate in government, we don't have charity.
There are a lot of subjective, squishy terms here (love, concern, participate in government), ending in a finality that feels...hasty to me. I don't think it's quite so binary as that.
quote:That's true whether the act is volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving to a beggar, paying a fast offering or supporting a government program. If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity. If we are motivated by anything else, it's not.
I'm not sure that's true, Rabbit. It feels a bit too...hard line and definitive for me to be comfortable with it.
quote:Any personal, spiritual gain we receive for the act of giving to the poor is secondary to the primary purpose thereof - that the poor are taken care of.
I'm not sure this is the case, either. God loves us all equally; the instruction that a rich man receives from giving away all his worldly goods to follow Christ can be as equally precious as the bread given to sustain a beggar.
Can you judge which is more valuable?
King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon draws this parallel: we are all beggars before God; even as He does not turn away from us, so we should not turn away from the beggar who asks us for aid.
Rakeesh, I'm afraid that there's not much more I can elaborate on the subject of cooperation and compulsion. Sorry.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB]
quote:How then would a law that required you to help the poor rob you of the opportunity to cooperate willingly?
That's not what I said. I said that compulsion robs the giver of the opportunity for spiritual growth.
My thinking is tied to the idea that only volitional acts are counted toward (personal) good or evil. It's the idea that a gift given grudgingly is the same as a gift not given (in terms of benefit to the giver).
That doesn't change my question. How do government programs to aid the poor rob individuals of the opportunity for spiritual growth. I don't see any shortage of opportunities for people to grow spiritually by helping the less fortunate.
quote:Do you think that obtaining divine approbation is the primary reason people should help the poor? I don't.
Earlier, I noted:
quote: I think that the impetus for charity though, should be love of others (or a sense of duty to God, if you can't manage love), rather than an observed need. Love and duty rarely fail to instruct, whereas observation is more frequently fooled.
I think you misunderstand my comment. If we are charitable people, we help because help is needed. If we are helping to earn points in heaven -- we aren't doing charity.
Rabbit said:
quote:If you are concerned about people having the opportunity to choose freely to serve and help each other, then you ought to be more concerned about how poverty robs people of the ability for spiritual growth than how government programs might. Grinding poverty limits peoples ability to help others far more than raising taxes on the well to do.
There's some question about the validity of that notion. Note that I still think taxes should be raised on the wealthy in order to provide services for the needy; but at least one study finds that the needy are more likely to assist other people than the rich.[/quote]
No argument here, but you still aren't addressing my question. How do government programs rob people of the opportunity for spiritual growth? Since you haven't addressed the question, I was guessing you were thinking that people didn't have money to give because of high taxes. If the poor are more likely to give than the rich, it seems unlikely that a lack of means is not the major barrier to giving (at least in the US). I really can't see how government programs rob people of an opportunity to grow spiritually by serving each other. There is no shortage of such opportunities.
quote:
quote:That's true whether the act is volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving to a beggar, paying a fast offering or supporting a government program. If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity. If we are motivated by anything else, it's not.
I'm not sure that's true, Rabbit. It feels a bit too...hard line and definitive for me to be comfortable with it.
It's not nearly as hardline as what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:3.
Note, I didn't say that it wasn't good to help people unless you were motivated by love. I said it wasn't charity. Charity is the pure love Christ. Pure is an absolute. It is hardline and it's not my definition -- it's the one found in scripture.
That doesn't mean that any other reason for helping the poor is bad. On the contrary, helping the needy for any reasons is better than not helping. But helping the poor is not, in and of itself, ever real charity. Charity is an inner attitude that motivates us to act. It is not the actions. Paul and Moroni are both unequivocal on this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How do government programs to aid the poor rob individuals of the opportunity for spiritual growth. I don't see any shortage of opportunities for people to grow spiritually by helping the less fortunate.
Keep in mind that I am NOT arguing for the cessation of government programs to aid the poor. I am saying that such programs-- good as they are for the needy (and I wish they were better)-- are applied in such a way that individuals are not assisting in a way that allows the individual to receive the benefit of showing charity.
Otherwise, there's not much that I can add to this, Rabbit. It ties back into the idea of volition and intention.
Can people still aid the poor if the government uses tax money to support the needy? Absolutely; I believe that such behavior is required for salvation. Nonetheless, I believe that we should be absolutely engaged in the PASSIVE removal of the need for government intervention-- by acting as individuals and communities to resolve the problem of poverty by our own will and personal effort.
quote:If we are charitable people, we help because help is needed. If we are helping to earn points in heaven -- we aren't doing charity.
The reason why I'm reluctant to commit here is because I dislike examining individuals' motives and coming to such a definitive conclusion. While I tentatively agree with the statement, I don't think it's proper to direct at anyone.
I know you haven't said any such thing-- but that's why I'm hesitant about your declarations here.
quote: If we are acting out of genuine love and concern for our neighbors, its real charity.
...
Charity is an inner attitude that motivates us to act. It is not the actions. Paul and Moroni are both unequivocal on this.
(Pretty sure you mean Mormon-- Moroni was quoting his father in Moroni 7 and 8, not writing his own words-- were you thinking of somewhere else, maybe? Maybe Moroni 10? Moroni 7 is where most folks tie Mormon and Paul's thoughts on charity together... Just checking...)
I'm not sure it's quite so clear cut, Rabbit. Moroni 7 is one of the sources I use for my beliefs on the subject. The early verses of the chapter speak specifically about the connection between action and attitude; so does James. So does Christ, for that matter, in the parable of goats and sheep.
[ February 24, 2012, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We have government structures regarding theft even though we are commanded not to steal. I don't see why supporting our duty to charity with government structures is fundamentally different. I don't think that religion should necessarily be supported by government but when the two have the same goals, I don't think that the one negates the good of the other. I don't think that we all should deny that we have kept the commandment not to steal because government agrees with it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is that in response to something I said, kmboots? I'm not seeing the connection.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are probably not seeing it because I am not making it very clear. I will try again.
You seem to be saying that government enforcement of charity weakens or sullies it and keeps us from being charitable of our own volition.
If we are to obey the command of charity of our own volition and it doesn't "count" if we are compelled shouldn't we also keep the commandment against stealing (for example) without government intervention? Do I not get credit for keeping that commandment even though we, as a community, have decided to enforce that one through the power of law?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If we are to obey the command of charity of our own volition and it doesn't "count" if we are compelled shouldn't we also keep the commandment against stealing (for example) without government intervention?
We should be able to keep all the commandments without government intervention.
quote:Do I not get credit for keeping that commandment even though we, as a community, have decided to enforce that one through the power of law?
Hm... I haven't given it a lot of thought so let me open with this: I don't think we're considered good simply by deeds of omission. I think our goodness or worthiness (or wickedness or immorality) or whatever is shown by our deeds.
Unless one is specifically tempted to break a 'thou-shalt-not' commandment, I'm not sure that one is ever blessed for obedience to it. I mean, I don't think there are a bunch of angels in Heaven lined up to slap you five just because you never killed anyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So is it boiling down to an omission/commission thing for you?
I think that we get extra high fives for doing what is difficult for us whether that is not stealing or giving when we aren't feeling particularly generous. Or working for a society that does either of those things when we don't particularly feel like it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So is it boiling down to an omission/commission thing for you?
I think that we get extra high fives for doing what is difficult for us whether that is not stealing or giving when we aren't feeling particularly generous. Or working for a society that does either of those things when we don't particularly feel like it.
I don't disagree. But the key words I pick out of your last paragraph are "doing what is difficult" and "working for a society" both which imply a level of volition.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmm...but working for a society can mean voting for or against something. Doing what is difficult can be refraining from something - giving something up, fighting an addiction. Those are positive "omission doing". If that makes sense.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hmm...but working for a society can mean voting for or against something. Doing what is difficult can be refraining from something - giving something up, fighting an addiction. Those are positive "omission doing". If that makes sense.
Deeds of omission that I meant relate to the example you gave: not stealing, not killing, etc. For most of us, we don't think about not stealing; it's not a problem. We aren't tempted to murder.
The examples you gave above deal with people making intentional choices. Even if the result is to not do something, the volition is present.
That said, I'm not sure we're in disagreement on the substantive things.
Did you want to disagree about something? Chicago style pizza is an abomination, and one day God will smite those who love it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You simply can't think of Chicago style pizza as the same kind of food as thin pizza. Call it something other than pizza if you like. It is wondrous. MMmm.
(Oooo...maybe I'll order veggie pizza tonight instead of the tuna casserole I was planning.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We've disagreed a lot over the years, but I'm flummoxed at the idea of any human being actually planning to make tuna casserole.
I mean, tuna casserole is beyond abomination. It's senseless, absolute evil, in a way that even Cthullhu cannot fathom. Cthullhu dreams of tuna casserole, and it ain't just because he's stuck under the sea: it's because he aspires for it, longs for it, seeks it with insane probings and pryings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It's what good Catholic girls have for dinner on Fridays during Lent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I quite like tuna casserole, but I'm the only person in my family who does and consequently I can't get enough of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I prefer it with a little ketchup.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I quite like tuna casserole, but I'm the only person in my family who does and consequently I can't get enough of it.
This is the real reason why you're one of the 4 horsemen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott, I really feel like we are just talking past each other. None of your responses seem particularly relevant to arguments I'm trying to make.
Our exchange really started when I said.
quote: . . . in modern American society, the government is the only organization to which we all belong. It is the only body through which we can act 'As the American People'. If we do not support Government involvement (of some kind) in caring for each other, I think we are shirking that collective responsibility. I think there is plenty of room for discussing what might be the most effective type of government involvement -- but I think Christianity does in fact require us to support some type of government involvement.
You asked "Why?"
You keep talking as though I've said that Christianity required us to support forcing people to give to the poor. I did not say that. I said Christian teaching require us (members of a democratic, secular society) to support "some type of government involvement" in caring for people.
Why do I believe that? As I said once before, the most simple and obvious reason is because everything the government does affects people and most everything government does affects the weak in different ways than the strong. Government can't be uninvolved in how we care for our neighbors because everything government does, from military policy to zoning ordinances, affects our neighbors.
In D&C 134:1 it says
quote:We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
If God is going to hold us accountable for how we participate in making and administering laws, then certainly, since He is a just God, the things He has revealed in the scriptures must be relevant to making and administering laws. Ancients Prophets weren't speaking to people who had a voice in civil government so we shouldn't expect them to say anything directly about making and administering civil laws. But we ought to expect the scriptures to teach us the kinds of righteous values and priorities that should be the foundation of our political views. So let's look at the kind of priorities we find in scripture that might be applicable to politics.
Let's start with how Jesus prioritized the commandment. He taught that the first great commandment was that we love God, but D&C 134 is quite explicit that laws governing worship and other spiritual affairs are unjust. We honor that first commandment in our political activities by supporting a strict separation of church and state and by promoting laws that maximize the freedoms of conscience. We honor that commandment in politics when we ensure that no one will be disadvantaged because of how, what or if they choose to worship. That ensures that those who desire to love God with all their heart, might, mind and strength are free to do so.
Jesus taught that the second most important commandment is that we love our neighbor as ourselves. It seems then self evident that unselfishness and compassion should be the foundation for all our interactions with other people. I have never found anything in scriptures that would imply our actions in relation to government are exempt from that commandment.
The express purpose of civil government (as defined in D&C 134) is to "regulate our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man". Our unmitigated obligation to care for the most vulnerable members of society (i.e. the poor, the sick, the very young and very old) stands out like the light of 10,000 suns in the scriptural teachings. As Dogbreath put it "the prophets read like a broken record" in this respect. If the scriptures teaches us anything at all about what values and priorities should regulate the way we interact with our community, caring for the needy is right at the top.
Therefore, Christians should make it a top priority to consider how the laws and policies we support will affect the most vulnerable members of society. If we do not, I can not see how we could possibly be meeting the obligations that are quite clearly defined in scripture. I think there is plenty of room for Christians to disagree about what kinds of government laws, regulations and policies will best help and protect the most vulnerable members of society. But I don't think its remotely consistent with scriptural teachings if Christians don't consider the well being of the needy as a top political priority because of the simple fact that political decisions affect the needy.
[ February 28, 2012, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Scott, I see circles in your argument. I know you don't like analogies, but lets see if this clears things up.
Bob is poor and needs food. Right now he gets $100 from the government to buy food.
Tom pays his taxes, and assumes $100 of his taxes goes to feed poor Bob.
If Tom were to take that $100 and donate it directly to Bob, then Tom would gain spiritually from the act of charity.
Since Tom is forced to pay his taxes, and pay that $100, then Tom does not get the spiritual growth. You don't get spiritual growth for doing things you are forced to do.
The counter argument is, if the Government does not pay Bob that $100, then Bob goes hungry and suffers unless Tom sees Bob suffering and decides to give him the money.
More people reduce their suffering under governmental programs than under a hodge-podge of random individual charity giving.
Should others suffering continue for the opportunity that a few luckier individuals may gain spiritual growth? How can there be spiritual growth by forcing others to suffer?
One can have ego growth.
One can have that fun feeling of "I just gave a dollar to the beggar and he said thanks." The tax man doesn't say Thanks, or doesn't mean it.
The Bible doesn't say a word about the ego.
Your argument is about what is best for you, not what is best for the recipient of the charity. That is a bit of a self-centered way of looking at charity, which is why you have received so many arguments.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
So, we pay our taxes and make sure we have a say in how they're used so that they are used for the greater good, and we also give all we can on top of that directly to the needy. Along the way we do our best to give in the correct spirit of giving. We don't stop giving while we quibble about whose good we are doing it for. Hopefully what we give is received as readily and is as useful for the recipient regardless of our mindset when we gave it. Whether or not we need to do a bunch of personal introspection to align our own attitude, if we don't stop our giving in the process then what we give will still be welcome and useful. One fulfills the directive to not neglect the poor and needy. The other addresses our own spiritual development.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I really feel like we are just talking past each other. None of your responses seem particularly relevant to arguments I'm trying to make.
I'm not sure what to say.
I think I've been pretty clear from the outset that I've been talking about government-enforced charity, especially as represented by the support of welfare programs through taxation.
quote:I think there is plenty of room for Christians to disagree about what kinds of government laws, regulations and policies will best help and protect the most vulnerable members of society. But I don't think its remotely consistent with scriptural teachings if Christians don't consider the well being of the needy as a top political priority because of the simple fact that political decisions affect the needy.
I don't have any real disagreement with this, I don't think; I'm wary of its implementation. As a theory, it's okay; in practice, I'm concerned.
I'll point out that a libertarian is as justified as a bleeding heart liberal in using D&C 134 to prop up their political action.
quote:Your argument is about what is best for you, not what is best for the recipient of the charity. That is a bit of a self-centered way of looking at charity, which is why you have received so many arguments.
Can you show why you think that this is the way that I believe? I think it's evident from what I've written that my belief is more nuanced than your analogy and your analysis describe.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think I've been pretty clear from the outset that I've been talking about government-enforced charity, especially as represented by the support of welfare programs through taxation.
And I think I've been clear from the start that I have not yet you direct your questions and responses to me as though I'm claiming Christianity teaches that government should force people to give to the poor. You are talking past me and not actually addressing what I'm saying.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'll point out that a libertarian is as justified as a bleeding heart liberal in using D&C 134 to prop up their political action.
Libertarians argue all kinds of irrational nonsense. So what?
If someone would like to explain what scriptures support the idea that protecting private property rights should be the highest priority of government, I'd be happy to address the flaws in their arguments.
The fact that people can wrest scriptures to support their pet political ideology is not evidence that scriptures cannot provide legitimate guidance on political issues.
Are there any specific scriptures you think I'm ignoring when I conclude that concern for how laws will affect the weakest members of society should be a top priority for Christians?
[ February 29, 2012, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I think I've been pretty clear from the outset that I've been talking about government-enforced charity, especially as represented by the support of welfare programs through taxation.
And I think I've been clear from the start that I have not yet you direct your questions and responses to me as though I'm claiming Christianity teaches that government should force people to give to the poor. You are talking past me and not actually addressing what I'm saying.
:shrug:
At this point, I'm afraid further discussion on this particular topic with you, Rabbit, is counter-productive. And I'm not sure our disagreement is substantive-- maybe you're a bit more willing to throw religious underpinnings to legislation than I am. I think we're both committed to helping the poor, both from an individual effort and collective effort standpoint.
Can't complain about that.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Scott, it sounds like your view implies that if poverty were somehow eradicated (let's say through a variety of government programs), that would be a bad thing. Because then we'd be robbed of any chance to better ourselves through charity.
Or maybe you'd say it would be a good thing overall, but there would still be a downside to it, in terms of a diminished opportunity to be virtuous?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that Scott is saying that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Scott, it sounds like your view implies that if poverty were somehow eradicated (let's say through a variety of government programs), that would be a bad thing. Because then we'd be robbed of any chance to better ourselves through charity.
Or maybe you'd say it would be a good thing overall, but there would still be a downside to it, in terms of a diminished opportunity to be virtuous?
The latter, sort of. It's more like...I believe that poverty will exist in some form until individuals and communities give their wealth and time freely and intentionally in order to aid those in need. I think generosity is a lesson we have to learn individually and collectively, and until we do, it's a lesson that will continue being taught.
I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
The commandment to give aid is unequivocal; but it takes the wisdom of God to judge who is most benefited (from an eternal/religious perspective).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, you asked if there are any Scriptures that indicate that preserving property rights should be a priority of government, and that address how laws will affect the weakest members of society.
Some of the provisions of ancient Israel give such examples. Here are three that come to mind:
(1) Landowners were commanded not to harvest the corners of their fields, and widows and others who qualified were allowed to glean those unharvested leftovers.
(2) Every 49 years was a year of Jubilee, when all slaves were freed, all debts forgiven, and all lands that had been sold were automatically restored to the families that previously owned them. The presumption seems to be that all land ultimately belonged to families, not to the government.
(3) Everyone who had an issue with another party had the right to come before the judge seated in the city gates and seek justice. No fee was required. The poorest person was entitled to seek justice. The role of the court or seat of judgment was to uphold the peace and order of society, not just to declare winners and losers, though that of course was often involved.
I have often wondered if modern society would have been better off if it had modeled its judicial system after the Hebrew system, rather than after the Roman system. One of the few things in our modern system that seems to be based on the provisions of the Jubilee year is our bankruptcy laws. And that, notice, is a modern innovation in the past couple of centuries. England used to send debtors to debtors prison, and at one point began shipping them off to Botany Bay (Australia), and to some other colonies.
[ February 29, 2012, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
Huh. This seems like a very easy question to me (emphasis for how strongly I feel it's an easy question). I arrive at my answer-the needy person receiving food-because I rate minimum required sustenance as one of the highest, most urgent needs and intangibles such as moral self-improvement as still important, but falling well behind.
If the greedy guy doesn't abandon his greed, he can still decide to later. If the hungry guy doesn't get food (and I'm talking malnutrition hunger), he can't decide, say, to reach his full adult height later or avoid any of the other negative effects just as an act of will: that thing he's walking around in, his body, may suffer permanent damage which he'll be stuck with even if he does get food tomorrow.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:all lands that had been sold were automatically restored to the families that previously owned them. The presumption seems to be that all land ultimately belonged to families, not to the government.
I can't see how a rational person could come to that conclusion. The fact that all lands that had been sold were automatically restored to the families that previously owned them says nothing about government. The law dealt with sale of lands between private parties, government didn't come in to it. The law indicates that land could not be bought or sold in the modern sense. A person could lease lands for up to 49 years, but ownership always remained with the family who, presumably, was given the land by God. This is pretty typical of the way land ownership was handled in many ancient societies.
Are you suggesting this should be a guide for how land ownership should be handled in modern societies? If so, how do we determine what families rightfully own the land? The land where my house sits is land I purchased. If we can determine what family rightfully owns my land, should I be required to return it to them in the next Jubilee year.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
I thinks its an absurd question to consider.
How could it affect any choice I might make? Nothing I can do to help provide food to hungry people is going prevent other people from engaging in acts of charity. Even if I could somehow force everyone to share all their material goods equally, there would still be myriads of opportunities for people to give charitable service to each other. Even when laws force people to give, they can let go of greed by changing their attitude toward paying taxes. Nothing I can do that would help the poor could deprive other people of the opportunity to develop Christ like love or do voluntary acts of charity.
There is no shortage of opportunity for people to help each other and there never will be. While one could reasonably argue that economic disparity creates more opportunity for people to help each other, that still wouldn't indicate that economic disparity help people develop a Christ like attitude toward helping others. All the data points the other way. Economic disparities tends to make people more self centered and greedy, not less.
[ February 29, 2012, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Coincidentally, my husband just sent me the following link [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/27/upper-class-people-behave-selfishly]. The subject line he put on the e-mail was "socialogists prove Matthew 19:24".
This was truly coincidental as I haven't mentioned this discussion to him.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, in our modern system, properties are taxed (except for a few counties in a few states), and if the taxes go unpaid for too long, the lands are confiscated by the government. So the presumption is that the government is the ultimate landowner. I think this is deplorable. Government should not have the power to take away anyone's land from them, no matter what. It is like dehumanizing the people.
When ancient Israel was set up, the whole nation of Israel moved in all at once, and the land was apportioned to each tribe and family. This probably was one of the reasons why Jews have always been so zealous about keeping track of their genealogies. Since our nation was colonized piecemeal, that sort of apportionment was not possible.
But even with our system of private land ownership, the sale should convey absolute and unalienable ownership of the land. The only taxes government should be entitled to are sales taxes and use taxes. Remember, property taxes (or what came to be regarded as property taxes) began in England in the 14th or 15th centuries. Link: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us
[ February 29, 2012, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote: I don't believe I have the wisdom to know who is helped more: a needy person who receives food, or a wealthy person who lets go of greed through acts of charity.
I do.
The person who gets food is helped more.
Jeez.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... Government should not have the power to take away anyone's land from them, no matter what. It is like dehumanizing the people.
Not sure I understand this.
Why is an asset such as land different from someone's mutual funds or bonds? Or maybe I'm assuming too much, is it also dehumanizing to confiscate someone's mutual funds if they fail to pay their taxes?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, historically, land has been the living base of a person, where families build their home, where they grow their food, etc. This is not as readily apparent to some people since we have moved away from an agrarian society.
Treasury bonds and stocks are disposable assets. Land, by way of contrast, is called "real estate" for obvious reasons. No matter how the value of real estate may fluctuate, or how many times it is sold, it still exists. It may be divided up or merged together. But it is something real, not theoretical or symbolic.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Historically, sure many people grew food on land. But why is that relevant today to whether land can be taxed?
Edit: Actually, clearer question than what I had before. Why is it not dehumanizing to confiscate assets that are "disposable?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does that mean that those who never had land or the opportunity to own land are less human than landowners?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No part of my humanity is incumbent upon owning land. Wealth? Yes. Comfort? Certainly. But if I own land, it doesn't give me an ounce of additional 'humanity' which is infringed upon or stripped from me because I can have it taken from me for reasons related to taxation.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Mucus, historically, land has been the living base of a person, where families build their home, where they grow their food, etc. This is not as readily apparent to some people since we have moved away from an agrarian society.
Some would even say it's no longer true, since we've moved away from an agrarian society.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rabbit, in our modern system, properties are taxed (except for a few counties in a few states), and if the taxes go unpaid for too long, the lands are confiscated by the government. So the presumption is that the government is the ultimate landowner. I think this is deplorable. Government should not have the power to take away anyone's land from them, no matter what. It is like dehumanizing the people.
When ancient Israel was set up, the whole nation of Israel moved in all at once, and the land was apportioned to each tribe and family. This probably was one of the reasons why Jews have always been so zealous about keeping track of their genealogies. Since our nation was colonized piecemeal, that sort of apportionment was not possible.
But even with our system of private land ownership, the sale should convey absolute and unalienable ownership of the land. The only taxes government should be entitled to are sales taxes and use taxes. Remember, property taxes (or what came to be regarded as property taxes) began in England in the 14th or 15th centuries. Link: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us
In our modern society, land is a commodity which can be bought and sold like everything else. The true owner of the land is who ever paid for it. Based on what you say, this wasn't true in ancient Israel. You could lease land for up to 49 years, but you couldn't buy it or sell it. The true owner of the land could never change. In ancient Israel, land wasn't a commodity that could be traded. It was a birthright. We don't have anything like that in modern society.
In the Bible, there is no distinction made between land that was sold freely for profit and land that was taken to pay debts or taxes. Why do you think the Bible supports making such a distinction now? In ancient Israel the permanent land owner remained the permanent land owner whether the land was sold for profit, to pay private debt or to pay taxes. Should we follow the biblical practice and make it impossible for people to voluntarily buy and sell land? If not, why should they be allowed to sell land for profit but never required to sell it to pay debts? Banks loan people money to buy land in a exchange for a lean that will allow them to seize the land if the debt is not repaid. Adopting such a practice would make it impossible for most people to get a loan to buy property. Is there some reason in the Bible, which you have not yet referenced, that this idea of the sanctity of land should only apply to debts to the government and not private debts? Note, that the government can seize your land if you don't pay your income taxes and sales taxes. That isn't something exclusive to property taxes.
Unless you are proposing that we return to a system where land belongs to families in perpetuity and can not be traded for money, then I can't see how what was done in ancient Israel has any relevance to whether or not land should be taxed. Land wasn't a market commodity in ancient Israel. It is a market commodity in our society. That means, by definition, that our laws regarding land can not be the same as theirs. You have to explain why you think Biblical land law still applies to taxes but not anything else about the way we treat land ownership and you have not.
[ March 01, 2012, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can we talk some more about ancient Israel and property rights and how their views on said rights ought to guide us in the 21st century?
Because, y'know, if we're gonna have that discussion we're sort of...missing...some people, or their descendants, from the region who might have something to say on Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribal attitudes towards property rights.
I don't think I need to spell it out any further, and I'm carefully discussing ancient history here only, but this topic is positively choked with irony.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This seems like a very easy question to me (emphasis for how strongly I feel it's an easy question). I arrive at my answer-the needy person receiving food-because I rate minimum required sustenance as one of the highest, most urgent needs and intangibles such as moral self-improvement as still important, but falling well behind.
If the greedy guy doesn't abandon his greed, he can still decide to later. If the hungry guy doesn't get food (and I'm talking malnutrition hunger), he can't decide, say, to reach his full adult height later or avoid any of the other negative effects just as an act of will: that thing he's walking around in, his body, may suffer permanent damage which he'll be stuck with even if he does get food tomorrow.
Rakeesh, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus gives a partial response to this, from the perspective of Christianity.
I'd like to know if your response-- and Liz B's-- is within the context of an understanding of Christianity (which is where my statements originated from) or if you're approaching the topic from a different point of view.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I get where you're coming from, Scott.And I'm having a hard time articulating why I feel so strongly about it.
Salvation is ultimately between the individual and God. Justice and mercy are our responsibility. (With God's help and grace, etc.) Charity does not necessarily lead to salvation; food definitely leads to not being hungry.
I think it's this: choices. Salvation is all about your choice. So I guess I take salvation off the table here. Lazarus and the rich man both had equal opportunities for salvation and damnation--as do we all--Moses and the prophets are there for all of us.
So the only thing missing from the equation is the actual need. Both need salvation equally; the needy person also needs the food.
I will readily admit that we may have quite different ideas of what is required for salvation. (In my belief, sanctification is not a moment but a process, and it's a response to justifying grace, not a requirement of it.)
Edited to add: And salvation may be the ultimate good but through scripture God has made it pretty clear that it's not the only good.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Liz:
I don't disagree with any one particular thing (with the exception of the idea that charity EDIT: does not lead to salvation).
Where does what you posted disagree with the ideas I've stated?
[ March 02, 2012, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't disagree with any one particular thing (with the exception of the idea that charity is NOT required for salvation).
I think that depends on what is meant by charity. If by "charity" Scott or Liz meant giving aid to the poor and the needy, then I agree with Liz. Charity is NOT required for salvation.
If by charity Scott or Liz meant possessing the virtue of genuine Christ like love, then I agree with Scott. Charity is required for salvation.
I know some people might be considered splitting hairs. Love isn't genuine if it isn't manifested in how we act. If a person has genuine Christ like love they will give aid to the poor and the needy willingly whenever the opportunity presents itself. If a person has the opportunity to help the needy and chooses not to (or to do so only grudgingly), they have not yet fully developed the virtue of charity.
But despite the necessary link between feeling genuine Christ like love and ones actions, I think the distinction must be important because it is mentioned numerous places in the scriptures. I think that distinction is important because there are some people (perhaps like the beggar Lazarus) whose circumstances are such that they never have the opportunity to help the needy. Such people are likely very rare but most people will go through some periods in their life when either their capacity or opportunities to do acts of charity are very limited. I think its important to understand that even when we aren't able to give, we must still work on developing the attitude of charity. I think that distinction is important because in this world some people have a much greater opportunity and capacity to give than others. It's important for us to understand that what is most important for our personal spiritual development is not the absolute amount we give, but that we do the best we can given the opportunities and capacities with which we are blessed. I think the distinction is important because we need to understand that the actual act of giving (as essential as it is for both the receiver and the giver) is not sufficient. We must develop the right attitudes and not just the right actions. If we are giving in order to get a reward or avoid a punishment (either from God or other people), its better than not giving but still inadequate. If we aren't acting out of genuine love, we have to keep striving to improve regardless of our acts.
And while I think that the distinction is important, I also realize its complicated and tricky and probably a little dangerous. It's complicated because even though one can develop genuine love for others even if they do not have the opportunity or capacity to serve, taking the opportunity to serve can help people develop selfless love. It's complicated because an attitude of genuine love leads us not only to serve when the opportunity presents itself, but to seek out opportunities and build our capacity to better serve. It's tricky and dangerous, because its too easy for people to rationalize that there is no value in helping the needy unless they are doing it out of genuine love. Helping the needy for the wrong reasons is better than not helping. Its always better for the person who receives the help and often for the giver as well. And its dangerous because people can use the distinction to rationalize that it doesn't matter what they do as long as they have a warm fuzzy feeling toward people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scott,
I'm afraid I was approaching the topic from a very different point of view, one in which questions about the condition of one's immortal soul aren't even asked. My perspective was one which tied into how government ought to think about these sorts of questions, and in that context souls simply don't signify, at all.
Without that factor, then, I was left considering (what I would say) are the actual needs being compared: the need to abandon greed and the need to avoid malnutrition. Both things can ultimately lead to good overall-channeled greed leading to greater prosperity, the knowledge of hunger leading to greater compassion, for example-but even at their smallest levels, malnutrition will always have bad effects, whereas a small amount of greed might not actually be bad at all.
So, address the malnutrition first. It's higher on the hiearchy of needs than moral self-improvement for a reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So, address the malnutrition first. It's higher on the hiearchy of needs than moral self-improvement for a reason.
Understood. But how do you measure the good that the act of giving charity does to the giver?
I allow that the giver may be as starved for divine grace as the beggar is starved for food.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To answer your question, you don't. How can you? Even admitting religious questions into a matter of our secular government, you still don't, because even then you can't. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a clearly charted scale of importance of needs, except to say that it is also important for someone who is greedy to be charitable.
As for your allowance, that may very well be true. I'm in no position to know one way or another (neither, I think, is anyone else, but that's a different discussion). But even if it is so, it is still true that neglecting charity won't kill the greedy human, but suffering malnutrition may very well help kill the needy human. Given that, even if we grant the importance of the greedy human embracing charity, the need of the malnourished human remains more pressing-even, I think, in the religious framework as I understand it, but without doubt in the secular.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As far as I know, you are correct.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, in our modern system, properties are taxed (except for a few counties in a few states), and if the taxes go unpaid for too long, the lands are confiscated by the government. So the presumption is that the government is the ultimate landowner.
No that is not the presumption and it is not what happens. If you do not pay your taxes for too long, the government can put your property up for sale and collect the taxes, interest and any expense they inccur in the sales from the proceeds of the sale. If they sell if for more than the taxes and their costs, the proceeds go to you not them. If they can not sell the property for what is owed to them, they can keep the property.
The underlying presumption is that government can place a lien on your property for taxes owed and, like other lien holders (such as the bank), the government can force you to sell your property to pay your tax debts. There is no implication that the government is the ultimate landowner. Other lien holders can do the same thing.
The presumption is that the government has a right to tax people. The presumption is that taxes constitute a legal debt. The presumption is that forcing people to pay their debts is a legitimate function of the law, even if their property must be sold to do so. There is nothing presumed or implied about "ultimate land ownership". In fact, it doesn't say anything about land specifically at all. Property taxes on buildings and other improvements far exceeds the value of property taxes on land. If you don't pay your taxes, the government can seize the money in your bank account, your business, your stocks and bonds and anything else you own. Why should land get special treatment.
There are plenty of legitimate arguments against property taxes (as well as many in favor). Why do you think its necessary to try to twist and distort some obscure aspect of the law of Moses to support your objection to property taxes when its neither necessary, logical, relevant to modern real estate trade or in the least bit persuasive to anyone who isn't already convinced?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:At this point, I'm afraid further discussion on this particular topic with you, Rabbit, is counter-productive. And I'm not sure our disagreement is substantive-- maybe you're a bit more willing to throw religious underpinnings to legislation than I am. I think we're both committed to helping the poor, both from an individual effort and collective effort standpoint.
Can't complain about that.
If you don't wish to continue, that's certainly your prerogative but if you don't mind, I'm curious about what you believe to be the proper role of religious convictions in voting. I understand that you are uncomfortable with using religious arguments to support legislation, but what exactly does that mean. Are you saying that if our values have been inspired by religious teachings, we should put them aside when we engage in politics or that we should keep our tre source of inspiration secret? If religion shouldn't inspire our attitudes toward politics, what are acceptable sources for political inspiration and values?
I've said a lot more about what I believe on this subject than you have and, if you are willing, I really would like to know where you stand.
What does it mean to you, when it says in the D&C, that God will hold us accountable for making and administering laws for the good and safety of society? To me, if I am accountable to God for some action it necessarily implies that I have a duty to try to act in a way that pleases him. Does it mean something else to you? Do you think there is anything at all in scripture that might help people better please God with the way we make and administer laws? If so, what?
Is your problem with people trying to find guidance from the Gospel for what political positions they should support or is it with people talking about how Gospel teachings inspired their politics or is it with using certain ways of talking about their religious inspiration or is it something else entirely?
I won't argue with anything you say. I'm just curious where you are coming from on this.
[ March 06, 2012, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)