FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » A Mormon POTUS, oh my (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: A Mormon POTUS, oh my
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Is that in response to something I said, kmboots? I'm not seeing the connection.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.)

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
It's what good Catholic girls have for dinner on Fridays during Lent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I prefer it with a little ketchup.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think that Scott is saying that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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).

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liz B
Member
Member # 8238

 - posted      Profile for Liz B   Email Liz B         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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?"

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Does that mean that those who never had land or the opportunity to own land are less human than landowners?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liz B
Member
Member # 8238

 - posted      Profile for Liz B   Email Liz B         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
As far as I know, you are correct.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2