Either you're against unfair religious-based (or antireligious-biased) taxation, or you're not. If you dislike taxes for abortion, one would think you'd be equally against taxes for Christians-only organizations... unless the underlying position is not about unfair taxation, but rather a conviction that Christianity should be funded with taxes, and others should not.
Don't fall into the trap of equating someone protesting a use of tax money on idealogical grounds with someone protesting to the use of tax money on legal grounds. Like it or not, Abortion has been upheld as a protected right under the Constitution.
Hell, I could found a religion tomorrow that is ideologically opposed to any use of tax money that doesn't involve giving me millions of dollars. :P
Of course, even being drawn into the comparison is a mistake, as I pointed out earlier.
|
Either you're against unfair religious-based (or antireligious-biased) taxation, or you're not. If you dislike taxes for abortion, one would think you'd be equally against taxes for Christians-only organizations... unless the underlying position is not about unfair taxation, but rather a conviction that Christianity should be funded with taxes, and others should not.Don't fall into the trap of equating someone protesting a use of tax money on idealogical grounds with someone protesting to the use of tax money on legal grounds. Like it or not, Abortion has been upheld as a protected right under the Constitution.
Hell, I could found a religion tomorrow that is ideologically opposed to any use of tax money that doesn't involve giving me millions of dollars. :P
Of course, even being drawn into the comparison is a mistake, as I pointed out earlier.
L Ron Hubbard beat you to it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Why should gays have to pay taxes that fund a military that they can not serve in (openly)?Good question. I'd say they should be able to serve openly then, or at least get a tax cut. See point above about tax bias, vs. two wrongs.
Actually that's a bad example (and I don't need to link to Wikipedia to prove my URL-fu). National Defence is one of the things that everyone benefits from, and is a specific enumerated power in the constitution.
That said, I do think DADT was poorly implimented, and the UCMJ should be changed.
Edit, fixing my abbreviation. Sorry, civilian here.
Because now you're showing a systematic bias, equating "Christian" with "good for society" and ignoring any organizations or issues that do not follow that narrow (and incorrect) definition.While I've said elesewhere my oposition to several taxes to pay for the functions beyond those limited to the constitution, I'd point out this actually loops back to my arguements about government recognized same sex unions. The Government can choose to promote certain functions in the goal of stability. Marriage licenses are one example, promoting organizations of social value (such as the Scouts) are another. Indeed, organizations that oppose the Scouts run smack into the irony that they're forcing their agenda on another, in the name of 'protecting' society from the other group's agenda.
Indeed, if the government can seize my property because I have the unfortunate instance of dying, why can't they give that money to the Scouts?
Some times I think it would be interesting to create a very secular equivalent to the scouts, called the Trekkers. It would based on the idea in Star Trek, how everyone no matter their position is at least vaguely familiar with all aspects of survival/ship design/control and such. So the organization would teach survival skills, but also computer skills, mechanical skills, etc. The uniform would be something like the uniforms on Enterprise (about the only thing I liked about the series was the utility of their uniforms with lots of pockets and such). Anyway, just an idea I've thought about from time to time. Carry on.
National Defense is one of the things that everyone benefits from, and is a specific enumerated power in the constitution. That said, I do think DADT was poorly implimented, and the MCoJ should be changed.
No disagreement here.
I assume you speak of me.
Well, I get tired of people (that would be you) who seem to think wealth, the generation of wealth, and opportunity are zero sum games. Opportunity exists, but it seems it is better to convice whole segments of the popuation that they are unsuccessful because someone is holding them down. Not because they have kids they cannot afford, choose not to go to school or bother to open a book when they do, or any of a host of poor personal decisions that aren't anyone outside of the decision maker's fault. Do I feel for kids whose parents had them even though they couldn't afford to? Yep. Do I think continuing with the insane policies that have wasted billions (perhaps, over the last 70 years trillions) of dollars is a good idea. Oh. Hell. No.
Keep doing what we have been doing. It doesn't work, and, by definition, it makes us insane.
Oh, and people that seem to think that taking money out of my pocket by the initiation and threat of force isn't somehow theft. If the only way you can collect is by threatening people with dire consequences if they decline, you're no better than a gangster.
You assume incorrectly.
My frustration with you is that you keep re-iterating your position in terms that keep building straw men. In this very post, you allude to policies that "waste billions of dollars." Of course wasting billions of dollars is bad idea, but you're begging the question.
Discussing (in neutral terms) why you believe those policies to be wasteful *might* be productive. Declaring those you disagree with "insane" and "no better than a gangster" simply serves no purpose.
And you can use a wiki-link, good for you! Funny how you can't answer my point.
The link shows that your point wasn't relevant. I was trying to pay you the courtesy of not explaining that to you.
Clearly I have failed.
Why should gays have to pay taxes that fund a military that they can not serve in (openly)?Good question. I'd say they should be able to serve openly then, or at least get a tax cut. See point above about tax bias, vs. two wrongs.Actually that's a bad example (and I don't need to link to Wikipedia to prove my URL-fu). National Defence is one of the things that everyone benefits from, and is a specific enumerated power in the constitution.
That said, I do think DADT was poorly implimented, and the MCoJ should be changed.
Gods I hate initialisms. I got DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) but what's MCoJ?
Gods I hate initialisms. I got DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) but what's MCoJ?
Military Code of Justice, I assume -- which should more properly be UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
|
|
Gods I hate initialisms. I got DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) but what's MCoJ?Why should gays have to pay taxes that fund a military that they can not serve in (openly)?Good question. I'd say they should be able to serve openly then, or at least get a tax cut. See point above about tax bias, vs. two wrongs.Actually that's a bad example (and I don't need to link to Wikipedia to prove my URL-fu). National Defence is one of the things that everyone benefits from, and is a specific enumerated power in the constitution.
That said, I do think DADT was poorly implimented, and the MCoJ should be changed.
Military Code of Justice.
Edit: Damn Ninja-trained satyrs
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Some times I think it would be interesting to create a very secular equivalent to the scouts, called the Trekkers. It would based on the idea in Star Trek, how everyone no matter their position is at least vaguely familiar with all aspects of survival/ship design/control and such. So the organization would teach survival skills, but also computer skills, mechanical skills, etc. The uniform would be something like the uniforms on Enterprise (about the only thing I liked about the series was the utility of their uniforms with lots of pockets and such). Anyway, just an idea I've thought about from time to time. Carry on.
Actually that was one of my comments when the case was before the courts. "Why do they want to force their way into the Scouts? If they agree with everything except the 'morally straight' clause, then why not form the 'Rainbow Scouts' with the same ethics, minus the Morally straight? Let the best group win?"
Kirth, MAybe it's just the groups I know and do think have 'social benefits' are Christian groups? (Though I think the scouts are non-denominational) How about the Civil Air Patrol does that count?
How about the Civil Air Patrol does that count?
Possibly, if they refrain from the sort of evangelical proselytizing that the USAFA is infamous for.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I believe celebrrating our religious heritage is important to making sure we don't lose our national identitiy. You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate that Christian founders felt their faith could survive in a free market of ideas, or that our nation still sets the standard for political and religious freedom.Say, you don't get out much do you?
I know that sounds harsh, but seriously, you really think the US is the pinnacle of political and religious freedom?
How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?
Dishonest demagoguery is far from the same thing as an established state religion. Again, many voters are Christians. That in no way is the same thing as having a state religion. Clearly I would take issue with Barack Obama's ideas about Christianity, seeing that he spent his adult life in a church that preaches, hate and redistribution, rather than any gospel a Christian could recognize.
And it's okay for Obama and I to disagree about religion. I don't think he shouldn't be president for his difference in beliefs (there are far too many reasons to get rid of him than that).
I claim freedom of religion because the Constitution guarantees it and we have it. Again, there's no religious requirement by law. You simply kiss a baby and pretend to have faith because there's a lot of voters out there whos votes you want. Witness Kerry's sudden rush back to Catholicism when the chips were down. He didn't have to be a Christian to run, he just claimed to be one to get votes. In no way does this mean America requires you, in letter or spirit, to be a Christian to be president. Supposing Kerry lost as many votes from his pretense as he picked up? It might be worse. Some might have chosen to vote for a third party because f Kerry's suden claim to be a Christian, while a lot of Christians flatly didn't believe the clam and so weren't swayed. Finally, some people who didn't care about his faith, might have felt he was being dishonest by suddnely copping one, and lost a taste for him whether they vote for Christian candidates or not. It was his choice to make, and by no means is he compeled to adopt Christianity in order to win the office.
I think the two-party system comment comes from a little posturing. We have a two-party system. We also are among the freest people in the world. The system has nothing to do with that freedom or lack thereof.
By setting the standard for religious freedom, I mean that we set the standard at our inception, and maintain that standard by supporting freedom abroad. I was not making a heavy-handed claim about the religious oppresiion of other free countries. I refer you to my comments about American exceptionalism above. It isn't that Americans think we are the only light in the world or any such thing. It is that we enjoin our free and valuable friends to promote freedom everywhere.
|
|
I assume you speak of me.
Well, I get tired of people (that would be you) who seem to think wealth, the generation of wealth, and opportunity are zero sum games. Opportunity exists, but it seems it is better to convice whole segments of the popuation that they are unsuccessful because someone is holding them down. Not because they have kids they cannot afford, choose not to go to school or bother to open a book when they do, or any of a host of poor personal decisions that aren't anyone outside of the decision maker's fault. Do I feel for kids whose parents had them even though they couldn't afford to? Yep. Do I think continuing with the insane policies that have wasted billions (perhaps, over the last 70 years trillions) of dollars is a good idea. Oh. Hell. No.
Keep doing what we have been doing. It doesn't work, and, by definition, it makes us insane.
Oh, and people that seem to think that taking money out of my pocket by the initiation and threat of force isn't somehow theft. If the only way you can collect is by threatening people with dire consequences if they decline, you're no better than a gangster.
You assume incorrectly.
My frustration with you is that you keep re-iterating your position in terms that keep building straw men. In this very post, you allude to policies that "waste billions of dollars." Of course wasting billions of dollars is bad idea, but you're begging the question.
Discussing (in neutral terms) why you believe those policies to be wasteful *might* be productive. Declaring those you disagree with "insane" and "no better than a gangster" simply serves no purpose.
I am defining my position clearly. Period. If you think I am building strawmen, well, people use that term all the time to dismiss other's opinions. That's the internet for you.
When bureaucracy burns up eighty cents of every dollar earmarked for social programs, but government employment unions have created a system where it is impossible to dismiss people for inefficiency, ineptitude, and outright illegal behavior, then the problem is government, not revenue.
When politicians are more interested in the appearance of doing something, rather than getting serious about actually doing anything (because, you know, if they ever solved a problem, they couldn't build their own "strawmen" of the boogaboo evil greedy people keeping folks unsuccessful), it isn't a revenue problem it's a government problem.
I know first hand how wasteful government agencies are. If a government employee is efficient and actually learns how to save money, they are punished. I've seen it happen. The agencies that waste money get more funding. Seen it happen. First hand.
Take military and infrastructure spending (the only spending actually authorized by the Constitution, btw) out of the equation, and there is enough money left over to give, every year, over $300k to every family below the poverty line. The fact that government cannot find a way, with that much money, to bring up the quality of life for the poor and "disenfranchised" in this country is a government problem, not a revenue problem.
I think government is the worst possible vehicle for helping people to a better life. Too wasteful, too interested in appearance than doing a good job. Like I said, the only reason I pay in is because I would go to prison if I didn't. If you think wasting my money is a great idea, and the way to achieve social "justice", then, well, I can't type my thoughts on that without a string of profanity that would make a sailor blush...
|
<SNIP>Why, then, should my tax dollars support a private organization that specifically excludes me from participation?*cue tumbleweed*Anyone?...
Anyone?...Bueller?
I am sorry I am at work and it is a busy day so I have less tiem to post then normal.
We sell popcorn and do other charity work to pay for scouts. I am not sure where any tax money you speak of is going, but it is not going to our pack. By the way you can still order Popcron online and the 19th is national popcorn day :)
|
|
Some times I think it would be interesting to create a very secular equivalent to the scouts, called the Trekkers. It would based on the idea in Star Trek, how everyone no matter their position is at least vaguely familiar with all aspects of survival/ship design/control and such. So the organization would teach survival skills, but also computer skills, mechanical skills, etc. The uniform would be something like the uniforms on Enterprise (about the only thing I liked about the series was the utility of their uniforms with lots of pockets and such). Anyway, just an idea I've thought about from time to time. Carry on.Because now you're showing a systematic bias, equating "Christian" with "good for society" and ignoring any organizations or issues that do not follow that narrow (and incorrect) definition.While I've said elesewhere my oposition to several taxes to pay for the functions beyond those limited to the constitution, I'd point out this actually loops back to my arguements about government recognized same sex unions. The Government can choose to promote certain functions in the goal of stability. Marriage licenses are one example, promoting organizations of social value (such as the Scouts) are another. Indeed, organizations that oppose the Scouts run smack into the irony that they're forcing their agenda on another, in the name of 'protecting' society from the other group's agenda.
Indeed, if the government can seize my property because I have the unfortunate instance of dying, why can't they give that money to the Scouts?
I have never heard of a single Trek based group but I have heard of several smaller Atheistic ones. The only difference is that they do not teach a reverance to G~d, and are not as successful mainly because they are small and very individual, not a large as say the BSA. But have the ones I have heard of have not been aroudn very long so you might give them a few years.
|
|
I have never heard of a single Trek based group but I have heard of several smaller Atheistic ones. The only difference is that they do not teach a reverance to G~d, and are not as successful mainly because they are small and very individual, not a large as say the BSA. But have the ones I have heard of have not been aroudn very long so you might give them a few years.Some times I think it would be interesting to create a very secular equivalent to the scouts, called the Trekkers. It would based on the idea in Star Trek, how everyone no matter their position is at least vaguely familiar with all aspects of survival/ship design/control and such. So the organization would teach survival skills, but also computer skills, mechanical skills, etc. The uniform would be something like the uniforms on Enterprise (about the only thing I liked about the series was the utility of their uniforms with lots of pockets and such). Anyway, just an idea I've thought about from time to time. Carry on.Because now you're showing a systematic bias, equating "Christian" with "good for society" and ignoring any organizations or issues that do not follow that narrow (and incorrect) definition.While I've said elesewhere my oposition to several taxes to pay for the functions beyond those limited to the constitution, I'd point out this actually loops back to my arguements about government recognized same sex unions. The Government can choose to promote certain functions in the goal of stability. Marriage licenses are one example, promoting organizations of social value (such as the Scouts) are another. Indeed, organizations that oppose the Scouts run smack into the irony that they're forcing their agenda on another, in the name of 'protecting' society from the other group's agenda.
Indeed, if the government can seize my property because I have the unfortunate instance of dying, why can't they give that money to the Scouts?
And, relating to the issue at hand, do they have to pay more than the scouts to use civic buildings? That's where Kirth is talking about in terms of his tax dollars, the subsidy to the scouts that is not available to other organisations, even though the scouts movement is religiously discriminating.
There's more than three in there, and several of the statements, should one choose to read them, are pretty darn specific in nearly any context. In any event, it's certainly enough to make a reasonable person question the "Christian nation" claims.
Not that evidence will change many made-up minds...
Bugleyman, that website is so full of illogical fallacies I don't even know where to start. I'll admit I didn't read much of it because of one of their opening points:
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft."
1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
So, according to them, the Founding fathers can't be Christians if they don't follow the Bible to the tee. I consider myself a Christian and I don't necessarily follow the Bible either. In fact, I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So, according to their warped logic I have to be a deist.
I am not sure where any tax money you speak of is going, but it is not going to our pack.
The scouts in Philadeplphia were "renting" one of the big public buildings for $1/year, for example -- that's tax dollars subsidizing rent, taxes, utilites, maintenance, the whole shooting match. When the city mentioned that the scouts would technically have to allow gays, to keep getting free buidling space, the local chapter raised a huge stink, claiming that as Christians they were being discriminated against.
|
|
There's more than three in there, and several of the statements, should one choose to read them, are pretty darn specific in nearly any context. In any event, it's certainly enough to make a reasonable person question the "Christian nation" claims.
Not that evidence will change many made-up minds...
Bugleyman, that website is so full of illogical fallacies I don't even know where to start. I'll admit I didn't read much of it because of one of their opening points:
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft."
1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
So, according to them, the Founding fathers can't be Christians if they don't follow the Bible to the tee. I consider myself a Christian and I don't necessarily follow the Bible either. In fact, I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So, according to their warped logic I have to be a deist.
Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.
Houston:
Saying policies result in the waste of billions of dollars is a statement of opinion. Typically, you'd go on to present what you feel is evidence to support that statement. But you aren't doing that. Instead, you keep re-iterating your position, which is unnecessary, because I understand your position.
If you have no interest in moving beyond that, fine. But right now all you're doing is saying "I'm right" over and over again.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
You assume incorrectly.
My frustration with you is that you keep re-iterating your position in terms that keep building straw men. In this very post, you allude to policies that "waste billions of dollars." Of course wasting billions of dollars is bad idea, but you're begging the question.
Discussing (in neutral terms) why you believe those policies to be wasteful *might* be productive. Declaring those you disagree with "insane" and "no better than a gangster" simply serves no purpose.
I responded to your link with a pretty long message that was eaten. Maybe it will show up, maybe not.
But I will respond here to say a few things:
First: you ought not refer people to the worthless link you sent up and then criticize someone for logical fallicies. That site is nonsense and well below anyone in this conversation. It begins with name-calling an apocryphal Religious Right. It assesses the belief that the founding fathers included a lot oc Christians as a lie and not a factual error or misunderstanding. The site exists to pick a fight, not to engage in conversation. The site miuses scripture taking them out of context and positing that a good Christian would never rebel against an oppressive government. It uses a verse from Samuel to note that rebellion is the same thing as witchcraft, ignoring the fact that there are no Christians in Samuel's time and the context of that Scripture has NOTHING to do with rebelling against a government that abuses state religion. Finally, the self-important, but poorly informed, authot of the site cherry-picks comments on the worthless ness of religion from a small sample of founding fathers. Again, this is poor reasoning. I also oppose excessive religion. As C.S. Lewis writes, religion can sometimes strangle Christianity. WHile I don't pretend to be an expert on Payne, I know in Common Sense, he suggests that the discovery of America (even its distance from Europe) was intended by God to allow people to have religious freedom when "home should afford neither friendship nor safety." Finally, the linked site contains an absurd contradiction. The original text of the Delcaration was changed by the founding fathers to include the phrase 'endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights' hardly suggests that men in that assembly did not have a strong faith.
Two: Mr. Morris does not commit any logical fallicy in his post. Failing to spend three hours detailing the idiocy of government entitlements does not rob his post of its potency. If you want examples, ask for them. As if you don't know what a more conservative person thinks about waste, generational poverty, government graft and entitlement spending. You might not agree, but his assertion about wasting billions of dollars is well known. It isn't a straw man. And it isn't begging the question to be brief and try to stay on topic. Frankly, sometimes people commit a straw man by claiming straw man. If you want an exhaustive conversation about government waste, that's great. I hope to be a part of it. But asserting there is waste, and opposing it is not a logical fallicy. Calling them insane and (very specifically, by the way) complaining that it's thuggish to steal my money at the point of a gun so you can give it to someone who won't work, is accurate and descriptive.
Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.There's more than three in there, and several of the statements, should one choose to read them, are pretty darn specific in nearly any context. In any event, it's certainly enough to make a reasonable person question the "Christian nation" claims.
Not that evidence will change many made-up minds...
Bugleyman, that website is so full of illogical fallacies I don't even know where to start. I'll admit I didn't read much of it because of one of their opening points:
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft."
1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
So, according to them, the Founding fathers can't be Christians if they don't follow the Bible to the tee. I consider myself a Christian and I don't necessarily follow the Bible either. In fact, I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So, according to their warped logic I have to be a deist.
No, it isn't Paul. I'm what is considered to be an Arian Christian. Look it up in wiki.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Bugleyman, that website is so full of illogical fallacies I don't even know where to start. I'll admit I didn't read much of it because of one of their opening points:
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft."
1 Samuel, 15:23
Theological aside:
Steven,
Excellent, well-reasoned post. The only flaw is that Paine was faced with repeated death threats for promoting Deism (read the Age of Reason of you ever have the chance), and was viewed as "a great threat to Christianity."
No, it isn't Paul. I'm what is considered an Arian Christian. Look it up in wiki.
Damn that Athanasius. All the quibble over a friggin' i. ;)
G~&+%+n post got eaten. Be back in a minute.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Saying policies result in the waste of billions of dollars is a statement of opinion. Typically, you'd go on to present what you feel is evidence to support that statement. But you aren't doing that. Instead, you keep re-iterating your position, which is unnecessary, because I understand your position.
If you have no interest in moving beyond that, fine. But right now all you're doing is saying "I'm right" over and over again.
You are painting yourself into a strange corner my firend.
So: you believe it is opinion and not fact that our government wastes billions of dollars. Let's use as one example $80b in Medicare fraud, or $6b in stimulus for the government to purchase greener government vehicles now, rather than purchase vehicles available when the government needs new vehicles. Or $3b for cash for clunkers, which cause autobuyers who would buy anyway to buy ealrier, and left car cmpanies in a lurch, both in terms of their payment from the government, and the availability of new customers in the last quarter.
The talk about government wase can be very specific. Youre pretty silly if you think Mr. Morris doesn't have passionate beliefs about specific waste. The conversation isn't about waste,specifically though. No fallicy is committed. You hurt your position by sticking to that claim.
ANd unlike the guy posted a few items aboe, I read your whole link, and all I can say is UNBANG. It's the lowest, dumbest thing I have read this week, and I read notes Pelosi's press conference yesterday. You should abandon that page and reconsider your standards for critical thinking.
No, it isn't Paul. I'm what is considered an Arian Christian. Look it up in wiki.I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So, according to their warped logic I have to be a deist.Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.
From what I'm reading, no you aren't. I'm seeing that Arian Christians still think Jesus is devine, they just don't think he and god are one and the same.
@ Houston (again):
Fact: Some people who are wealthy didn't earn their wealth, and instead simply got lucky, cheated, and/or exploited others.
Fact: Some people who are poor are lazy, stupid, or both, and need to shut up and lie in the bed they've made for themselves, because they're nothing but a drain on society.
And so the truth of whether our society truly rewards merit (what I believe to be the crux of our disagreement), isn't absolute. Like most truths, the answer is in there someplace, and exactly where is something I'd like to hear your views on, because I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. But absolute declarations don't lend themselves to the sort of communication. Nor do polarizing accusations of laziness, stupidity, and thuggery on the part of the "other side" (a line which seems quite clear to you).
I mean this kindly, and hope you will take it as such, but the sooner we all learn that the world isn't black and white, the better off we will all be.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Steven,
Excellent, well-reasoned post. The only flaw is that Paine was faced with repeated death threats for promoting Deism, and was viewed as "a great threat to Christianity."
Again, I don't claim to be an expert on Paine. The salient points are:
the link is crap and anyone can cherry pick a few comments to misrepresent the whole. Many documents demonstrate a clear, Christian faith for many of the founders. I don't claim to know what Paine believed. But I won't be referring anyone to errant sites full of holes to tell you what 40 other, largely anonymous founders thought, either. And I certainly won't refer you to a site that takes the attitude that atheists or deists are some monolithic block of left-wing liars and extremists. Finally, I will not guarantee success, but I will try not to commit the same fallicy I accuse someone of, while committing it.And I don't mean to offend Mr. Bugle-guy, either. I just think the conversation is better for all if the arguments and evidence are held to a higher standard.
You are painting yourself into a strange corner my firend.So: you believe it is opinion and not fact that our government wastes billions of dollars. Let's use as one example $80b in Medicare fraud, or $6b in stimulus for the government to purchase greener government vehicles now, rather than purchase vehicles available when the government needs new vehicles. Or $3b for cash for clunkers, which cause autobuyers who would buy anyway to buy ealrier, and left car cmpanies in a lurch, both in terms of their payment from the government, and the availability of new customers in the last quarter.
The talk about government wase can be very specific. Youre pretty silly if you think Mr. Morris doesn't have passionate beliefs about specific waste. The conversation isn't about waste,specifically though. No fallicy is committed. You hurt your position by sticking to that claim.
I'm 100% sure that the government has wasted billions of dollars. But declaring all the waste to the work of the "other side" is begging the question. Please stop, and look up "begging the question." That isn't a dig, but an honest request.
ANd unlike the guy posted a few items aboe, I read your whole link, and all I can say is UNBANG. It's the lowest, dumbest thing I have read this week, and I read notes Pelosi's press conference yesterday. You should abandon that page and reconsider your standards for critical thinking.
Thanks for the veiled insult. Right or wrong, at least have the b$##s to come out and call someone stupid. Who do you think you're fooling?
|
|
No, it isn't Paul. I'm what is considered to be an Arian Christian. Look it up in wiki.Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.There's more than three in there, and several of the statements, should one choose to read them, are pretty darn specific in nearly any context. In any event, it's certainly enough to make a reasonable person question the "Christian nation" claims.
Not that evidence will change many made-up minds...
Bugleyman, that website is so full of illogical fallacies I don't even know where to start. I'll admit I didn't read much of it because of one of their opening points:
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft."
1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
So, according to them, the Founding fathers can't be Christians if they don't follow the Bible to the tee. I consider myself a Christian and I don't necessarily follow the Bible either. In fact, I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So, according to their warped logic I have to be a deist.
Is this the wiki page? Because that doesn't help much, but your beliefs are your beliefs.
Steven,
Excellent, well-reasoned post. The only flaw is that Paine was faced with repeated death threats for promoting Deism, and was viewed as "a great threat to Christianity."Again, I don't claim to be an expert on Paine. The salient points are:
the link is crap and anyone can cherry pick a few comments to misrepresent the whole. Many documents demonstrate a clear, Christian faith for many of the founders. I don't claim to know what Paine believed. But I won't be referring anyone to errant sites full of holes to tell you what 40 other, largely anonymous founders thought, either. And I certainly won't refer you to a site that takes the attitude that atheists or deists are some monolithic block of left-wing liars and extremists. Finally, I will not guarantee success, but I will try not to commit the same fallicy I accuse someone of, while committing it.And I don't mean to offend Mr. Bugle-guy, either. I just think the conversation is better for all if the arguments and evidence are held to a higher standard.
No offense taken. I responded to a wall of quotations with the same. It does stand to reason the most readily accessible list of quotations that support my position would be found on a progressive website.
I am not sure where any tax money you speak of is going, but it is not going to our pack.The scouts in Philadeplphia were "renting" one of the big public buildings for $1/year, for example -- that's tax dollars subsidizing rent, taxes, utilites, maintenance, the whole shooting match. When the city mentioned that the scouts would technically have to allow gays, to keep getting free buidling space, the local chapter raised a huge stink, claiming that as Christians they were being discriminated against.
I think that is the saddest thing of these conflicts. 64,000 youths might be neglected because of these things. I could understand if someone was suggesting an alternative program, but to try to dismantle a program in place because you don't like its policies without a good alternative, I find that sad.
From what I'm reading, no you aren't. I'm seeing that Arian Christians still think Jesus is devine, they just don't think he and god are one and the same.No, it isn't Paul. I'm what is considered an Arian Christian. Look it up in wiki.I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So, according to their warped logic I have to be a deist.Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.
Yes, poor wording on my part and a misunderstanding on my part of what the word "divine" encompasses. When I said Christ isn't divine, I meant to say that Jesus and God aren't the same being and that Jesus wasn't God in the flesh.
Edit: Actually this article defines divine as I originally did and that Christ can't be considered divine.
I think that is the saddest thing of these conflicts. 64,000 youths might be neglected because of these things. I could understand if someone was suggesting an alternative program, but to try to dismantle a program in place because you don't like its policies without a good alternative, I find that sad.
Here's a good alternative: Stop excluding people because you disagree with them. The program continues (expands, in fact). Everybody wins. It seems to me that both sides are equally culpable if it shuts down.
The salient points are: the link is crap and anyone can cherry pick a few comments to misrepresent the whole. Many documents demonstrate a clear, Christian faith for many of the founders.
I agree on both points. In the interest of fairness, though, I felt I should remind you that just as many documents demonstrate a clear, Deist faith for a number of the founders -- lest you inadvertently fall into the same problem with cherry-picking that you're (correctly) speaking out against.
|
|
Houston:
Saying policies result in the waste of billions of dollars is a statement of opinion. Typically, you'd go on to present what you feel is evidence to support that statement. But you aren't doing that. Instead, you keep re-iterating your position, which is unnecessary, because I understand your position.
If you have no interest in moving beyond that, fine. But right now all you're doing is saying "I'm right" over and over again.
So, I am saying that our agencies are wasting billions of dollars. And, this isn't an opinion. It is a fact. Easily found, and, no, I'm not going to do the easy thing and link to the GAO or any of the other of hundreds of web sites that will show you where and how your tax dollars are spent. If you think it is an opinion, then you are ill informed on the subject, and really should refrain from commenting on something you apparently know jack all about.
Seriously.
This is my biggest bone with people who think government is the answer. Head in the sand attitudes about how efficient government is.
And, seriously, I am right. Proof is in the pudding, and the government pudding is spoiled. Unfit for service.
I think that is the saddest thing of these conflicts. 64,000 youths might be neglected because of these things. I could understand if someone was suggesting an alternative program, but to try to dismantle a program in place because you don't like its policies without a good alternative, I find that sad.Here's a good alternative: Stop excluding people because you disagree with them? The program continues, everybody wins. It seems to me that both sides are equally culpable if it shuts down.
Except that particular group can't change those regulations, only the National organization can. And that particular group can't survive without being part of the national organization. Basically it is being put in to a no-win situation.
EDIT: But I agree, all involved share some level of responsibility. I just find it sad that in the end, it is the kids that are going to be the ones that suffer because the grown ups can't act like grown ups.
|
|
I am not sure where any tax money you speak of is going, but it is not going to our pack.The scouts in Philadeplphia were "renting" one of the big public buildings for $1/year, for example -- that's tax dollars subsidizing rent, taxes, utilites, maintenance, the whole shooting match. When the city mentioned that the scouts would technically have to allow gays, to keep getting free buidling space, the local chapter raised a huge stink, claiming that as Christians they were being discriminated against.
I think that is the saddest thing of these conflicts. 64,000 youths might be neglected because of these things. I could understand if someone was suggesting an alternative program, but to try to dismantle a program in place because you don't like its policies without a good alternative, I find that sad.
Yes, damn people for insisting the Scouts obey the law. If they want cheap rates, they can't be discriminatory. They get to choose: their exclusionary practices or paying more cash. What's the problem with this?
I agree on both points. In the interest of fairness, though, I felt I should remind you that just as many documents demonstrate a clear, Deist faith for a number of the founders -- lest you inadvertently fall into the same problem with cherry-picking that bugleyman can't seem to find his way out of.
Are we forgetting I wasn't the first person to include or link to a wall 'o quotations? I was making a point...
So, I am saying that our agencies are wasting billions of dollars. And, this isn't an opinion. It is a fact. Easily found, and, no, I'm not going to do the easy thing and link to the GAO or any of the other of hundreds of web sites that will show you where and how your tax dollars are spent. If you think it is an opinion, then you are ill informed on the subject, and really should refrain from commenting on something you apparently know jack all about.Seriously.
This is my biggest bone with people who think government is the answer. Head in the sand attitudes about how efficient government is.
And, seriously, I am right. Proof is in the pudding, and the government pudding is spoiled. Unfit for service.
I never said anything about how efficient I feel the government is. You assumed. It isn't the waste we disagree on Houston, but rather on which policies are wasteful.
You're literally stating: I am right. That's your argument. If that doesn't at least give you pause, then I don't know what will.
I don't suggest that abuses didn't occur. It was still slavery. Slavery (as we understand it) is still evil. No disagreement of any kind there.
Okay, getting back on the horse here. I'm glad we can agree on this, at least.
The point is that we aren't a nation founded by slave owners.
Well, that was short...
We are a nation founded by free men, who largely envisioned the end of slavery. The nobility owned slaves before the nation was formed, and some, perhaps many, of them tried to end slavery, and didn't live to see it in their lifetimes. In no way is slavery excused by my post, and in no way do I maintain that American slavery was without abuse, excess, cruelty, etc. The point is not to excuse slaves, the point is to make you aware that many (I don't pretend all) of our founders sought a way to end slavery without eliminating a workforce and sentencing ten million people to death.
I had a very long post on this that got eaten, which burns me up. Still, the gist is that you and I will have to disagree on to the degree the ideas you posit here extended throughout the founders and their immediate descendants. You say many. I say some. Neither of us are saying none, and I think that is where we will have to leave it.
I am not blind to the immense economic power that a practice of slavery would have for a country, and particularly a country that turned it into a 90% econonomic/10% cultural issue(percentages mine) to the extent ours had at the time(note- the legal and cultural percentage would have shifted more and more over time until the events that lead to the civil war, by which time I would say more 70/30). There was a lot more I had to say here, but it is now lost the ether. Damn.
|
|
So, I am saying that our agencies are wasting billions of dollars. And, this isn't an opinion. It is a fact. Easily found, and, no, I'm not going to do the easy thing and link to the GAO or any of the other of hundreds of web sites that will show you where and how your tax dollars are spent. If you think it is an opinion, then you are ill informed on the subject, and really should refrain from commenting on something you apparently know jack all about.Seriously.
This is my biggest bone with people who think government is the answer. Head in the sand attitudes about how efficient government is.
And, seriously, I am right. Proof is in the pudding, and the government pudding is spoiled. Unfit for service.
It isn't the waste we disagree on Houston, but which policies are wasteful.
You're literally stating: I am right. That's your argument. Doesn't that tell you anything?
I'm still waiting for you to come up with ways to eliminate the waste. My idea, that maybe the government should stop stealing money I work my ass off for and wasting 80% of it before it gets to the people a program was allegedly set up to help obviously isn't your cup of tea.
And, no, my argument was lost in your "straw man" b#+*~~!#, which, I've found over the years to mean "I will dismiss your position by pithy use of phrases from a symbolic logic class I got a "c" in, rather than offer a logical reason why my side of the argument (in this case, sucking billions of dollars out of the economy and wasting in ways that do not strengthen said economy) is the path we should take."
I'm still waiting for you to come up with ways to eliminate the waste. My idea, that maybe the government should stop stealing money I work my ass off for and wasting 80% of it before it gets to the people a program was allegedly set up to help obviously isn't your cup of tea.And, no, my argument was lost in your "straw man" b~&#~@*!, which, I've found over the years to mean "I will dismiss your position by pithy use of phrases from a symbolic logic class I got a "c" in, rather than offer a logical reason why my side of the argument (in this case, sucking billions of dollars out of the economy and wasting in ways that do not strengthen said economy) is the path we should take."
Point of fact: I got an A. The Straw Man is a clearly defined (though admittedly oft-misused, as it was in this very thread) concept, and quite a useful one, but your apparent raging anti-intellectualism is really beside the point.
What "waste" are you talking about? You need to distinguish between waste and legitimate government expenditure (assuming you believe there is such a thing). I am a strong proponent of balancing the budget. Optimize the tax rate using the Laffer curve. Cut spending like crazy. Pay down the debt. Then cut taxes more.
Are you even reading what I'm writing? Stop trying to win for a minute. Seriously. Allow me to repeat myself:
Fact: Some people who are wealthy didn't earn their wealth, and instead simply got lucky, cheated, and/or exploited others.Fact: Some people who are poor are lazy, stupid, or both, and need to shut up and lie in the bed they've made for themselves, because they're nothing but a drain on society.
And so the truth of whether our society truly rewards merit (what I believe to be the crux of our disagreement), isn't absolute. Like most truths, the answer is in there someplace, and exactly where is something I'd like to hear your views on, because I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. But absolute declarations don't lend themselves to the sort of communication. Nor do polarizing accusations of laziness, stupidity, and thuggery on the part of the "other side" (a line which seems quite clear to you).
I mean this kindly, and hope you will take it as such, but the sooner we all learn that the world isn't black and white, the better off we will all be.
So, I am saying that our agencies are wasting billions of dollars. And, this isn't an opinion. It is a fact. Easily found, and, no, I'm not going to do the easy thing and link to the GAO or any of the other of hundreds of web sites that will show you where and how your tax dollars are spent. If you think it is an opinion, then you are ill informed on the subject, and really should refrain from commenting on something you apparently know jack all about.Seriously.
This is my biggest bone with people who think government is the answer. Head in the sand attitudes about how efficient government is.
And, seriously, I am right. Proof is in the pudding, and the government pudding is spoiled. Unfit for service.
It isn't the waste we disagree on Houston, but which policies are wasteful.
You're literally stating: I am right. That's your argument. Doesn't that tell you anything?
I'm still waiting for you to come up with ways to eliminate the waste. My idea, that maybe the government should stop stealing money I work my ass off for and wasting 80% of it before it gets to the people a program was allegedly set up to help obviously isn't your cup of tea.
And, no, my argument was lost in your "straw man" b&~&@&*~, which, I've found over the years to mean "I will dismiss your position by pithy use of phrases from a symbolic logic class I got a "c" in, rather than offer a logical reason why my side of the argument (in this case, sucking billions of dollars out of the economy and wasting in ways that do not strengthen said economy) is the path we should take."
You're both right. Foaming at the mouth over the degree to which you both are correct just ensures that the government gets to waste more of your cash, as two people who could possibly work together to become its worst nightmare strangle one another to death. Houston, how do you think this should be done beyond than a rap on the knuckles for the greedy government piggy? Bugley, maybe you could mention some specific programs that you yourself would cut?