11/3 You know, people say the country was divided along cultural, not
economic lines. The reasoning is that if only the poor
southerners weren't so damn christian they d see the economic
benefit to voting for Kerry. I am not sure this is true. I think
culture not so much overshadows economic considerations, but frames
the thoughts about economics. I really don't think the southern
christians are fans of the DNC economics, and this is BECAUSE they
are christians. -- ilyas
\_ why? what christian values make them hate "DNC economics"?
\_ Well, I don't think they _hate them_, but I think christianity,
especially more moderate christiniaty, meshes very well with
conservative economics. For instance, christianity has a
spirit of giving, rendering the state-sponsored income
redistribution to help the poor less necessary. A
moderate christian is a libertarian's best friend. -- ilyas
redistribution to help the poor less necessary. There is
a spirit of distrust of government in christianity --
"to the Caesar Caesar's", etc. A moderate christian is a
libertarian's best friend. Also, American christianity traces
its roots to, of course, british puritanism, with the whole
work ethic thing. -- ilyas
\_ Jesus said "to the Caesar Caesar's" in reply to the
Pharisees' attempt to trap him as either rebellious
against the Romans or traitorous to the Jews. It has
nothing to do with distrust of the government.
\_ Jesus did say that, but as with most Bible quotes,
you can take this quote in a larger context. For
instance you can take it as a call to live a life of
minimal engagement with the earthly government, and
devoting most of one's life to spiritual matters.
-- ilyas
\_ There is no such "larger context" in the bible
to support this interpretation. This would
be force fitting the bible to one's own view
as opposed to basing one's view according to the
bible, a dangerous practice if you ask any
Christian.
\_ I am not a christian, so I have no need to
fit the bible to anything. If you doubt
Christiniaty, especially in its beginnings
as a renegade religion, and subsequently in
the guise of persecuted sects like the
puritans who just wanted to be left alone to
worship as they pleased does not entail a
certain cultural distrust of government,
shrug. I think Christ himself had a very
anti-authoritarian message, and yes I
disagree with you about the quote, for this
reason. -- ilyas
\_ perhaps not you, but many supposed
Christians certainly are trying to
fit the bible to their political agenda.
No, Christ is not anti authority but
anti self-righteous hypocrites, be
they corrupt Jewish priests, or
certain politicians of today.
\_ So, have you been practising the Christian / Jewish
practice of giving 1/10 th of your income for doing
God's work?
\_ Now that we have a theocracy you can deduct federal taxes
from your tithe.
\_ I thought we already can do that?
\_ Actually, as an independent comment to what you are saying,
I think a lot of voters voted for the guy with the right attitude
- kill the terrorists first, and ask questions later.
Kerry would in their minds, on the other hand, hesitate and
think before killing terrorists.
\_ Why not take the same attitude and use it for law enforcement
in the US? I am ALL FOR IT, SERIOUSLY!
\_ You aren't paying attention, are you? The biggest issue turned
out to be "God, guns and gays."
\_ anytime you bring religion into an issue, all logic needs
to be thrown out. I mean, just look at the Christian vs.
Muslim thing. The whole idea behind both of them is that
"I'm right, you're wrong", you're going to hell, and I
must eradicate you. You know, Salman Rushdie wrote bad
things about Muslim, but in fact, Christianity isn't all
that much better. Fuck religion. -agnostic
\_ In some sense, I agree with you, but you must understand that
_all_ moral commitments are ultimately subjective in the same
sense religion is. Including liberal and conservative ones.
You can't 'prove' progressive taxation to someone, it reduces
to some moral axioms you choose to believe in. I think most
of political discourse isn't _really_ about logic anyways.
-- ilyas
\_ Uh, no. You cannot argue that we would not have chaos
without a government structure, police & laws. There are
some things that have been proven to be absolutely true
throughout the centuries, and they will always be true
unless mankind goes through some massive social shift
that has not happened in a hundred thousand years.
\_ Well, _I_ cannot argue this. An anarcho-capitalist would
happily argue this, and I can't a priori reject what
he says. And this is for a very non-controversial kind of
axiom, whether a central government is even necessary.
When we are talking about something more controversial,
like progressive taxation, there is clearly no objective
truth, just subjective opinion on human rights. -- ilyas |
http://csua.com/feed/