|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does God like conservatives or liberals better?
|
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803
|
Posted
This arises from comments made in the "who are you going to vote for thread" ... would Jesus give a bigger thumbs up to politics which mandate the "redistribution of wealth" and more extensive social services?
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
I suppose that gives you a hint of where I stand on this .... however my reading of scripture does indeed indicate that Jesus wanted and mandated redistribution of some amount of wealth. Who could read the parable of Lazarus or Matthew 25 and not come to that conclusion? But it was to be done voluntarily and on an individual basis, and it pertained to the necessities of life, food shelter and clothing, not luxuries.
In this secular society I am glad that those of us who are poor and genuinely disabled such as myself, can get those necessities and then a little extra if we're careful. Most Republicans in this country don't want to throw away the safety net, just make sure the system is run efficiently and without too much scamming, and that beneficiaries are genuinely needy and can't work. And that they receive only what's necessary to survive in peace, rather than large amounts of luxury items.
I think we have a fairly good system now in the USA ... too much socialism and economies stagnate or die entirely .... too pure a capitalism and so many suffer. We're fairly well balanced, mostly capitalist but with a heart. I think Jesus is happy with our politics, other than the abortion thing.
[ 24. February 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine
Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I dunno, Hermit. I think your question includes an assumption that I disagree with. I don't think God likes conservatives or liberals better. I think he loves us all, whether we're liberals, conservatives, libertarians, communists, monarchists, or whatever other brand of political stupidity we favor.
I happen to think that, as members of a community, we each have a clear responsibility to do our share for the upkeep of the community, just as each member of a home has a responsibility to do their share of the chores. So we should each pay our share of the bills for roads, schools, police, parks, and the like, and taxes are usually the fairest and most sensible way to do that. None of us should be allowed to have garbage piles outside, attracting vermin and creating odors that damage the quality of life of the neighbors. None of us should endanger our neighbors by driving drunk, or shooting off fireworks during a drought.
Likewise, the community has obligations to its members -- basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care (including treatment for mental illness and substance abuse), police and fire protection) should be available to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.
I know there are some who think that, in the long run, lower taxes and libertarian policies benefit everyone. I don't think so. I think that higher taxes and communitarian policies benefit all of us. They allow us to do the things that have to be done so that folks who are now drains on the system can become productive members of the community.
But I wouldn't say that God agrees with me. Or that he doesn't. I think it's very dangerous to wrap specific social policies in God's name.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
The basic problem with the communitarian argument is that it doesn't generalise beyond the specifics of modern society. It is only because modern technology (and capitalism!) has given us the enormous surpluses that they can be taxed to provide the community goods and support to the poor. Once this is recognised, the central thrust of liberal argument that we have an absolute duty to provide these things crumbles away. All that is left is a commendable desire to do so - but it lacks the appeal to 'rights' that enflames most liberals.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
By definition God - in Christian theology at least - is community. The Trinity in which 'none is afore nor after another'. If that isn't a model for human society I don't know what is. But to answer the OP, God's love for us doesn't depend on our opinions of God or politics or anything else.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
I don't know what God thinks, but I sure think a debate framed in this way is going to be a big waste of time. If all you want to do is rant about the "nanny state", do it in Hell.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
I think we have a fairly good system now in the USA ... too much socialism and economies stagnate or die entirely .... too pure a capitalism and so many suffer. We're fairly well balanced, mostly capitalist but with a heart.
My understanding is that here in the UK we have a more 'socialist' system than in the states. (We could argue about the quality of service but we do have free health care for all, unemployment / disability benefits etc.)
Doesn't seem to have damaged our economy too much Hermit so I guess you could afford to be a bit more 'socialist' wihout it killing you on that side of the pond.
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Does God like liberals or conservatives better?
Neither, he likes us all the same.
Does God prefer liberal or conservative policies?
This is another question entirely.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
quote:
by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor
Ah, you mean *that* sort of liberal. If you cook like you write, I'm not sure your guests will be able to digest all that roast pork served with marmelade and Rocky Road ice cream finished off with a shot of smoked salmon floating in cream soda.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
Holy straw man, Batman! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Seriously, I'd say this. The strength of capitalism is that it is based on self-interest, of which there is an abundant supply. The weakness of capitalism is that it is based on self-interest, which all to easily becones short-sighted greed instead of the enlightened self-interest that recognizes that being dishonest tends to hurt oneself in the long term.
Somehow, I don't see God that cares so much about whether an economic policy is to the left or the right. He seems more concerned about justice and mercy.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
I think society is something that can grow, change, evolve. We shouldn't look to a book written 2000 years ago for social policy (not that the bible is irrelevant today, God is eternal, but we have to take it in the context of the time it was written).
Charity may have worked in dealing with social problems in the past, but will it work now? Or is the population too big these days? Is capitalism the way things will be forever, or just another stage in the development of society? Will technology one day render capitalism as we know it obsolete?
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The basic problem with the communitarian argument is that it doesn't generalise beyond the specifics of modern society. It is only because modern technology (and capitalism!) has given us the enormous surpluses that they can be taxed to provide the community goods and support to the poor.
You mean those surpluses that hunter gatherers didn't have (hunter gatherers were as strong and well nourished as modern western man- it was farming that caused the malnutrition of e.g. the dark ages (source: Jared Diamond, The Rise and Fall of The Third Chimpanzee). You mean those surpluses that the Romans didn't have so they couldn't give their citizens "Bread and Circuses"? You mean the surpluses that didn't create e.g. Versailles, the Vatican (to pick the two most extreme examples I've seen) and many other palaces and monuments? You mean the surpluses in man-hours that didn't eist that were not used to create the Pyramids, Cuzco, Maccu Pichu, the Aztec Pyramids, the English Longbow and the Legion to name a few (also to an extent the Katana and many other technological devices). Sure, we've got more now than we've had in the past but it's just a matter of degree.
quote:
Once this is recognised
Then you have framed the argument with a poor knowledge of history.
quote:
the central thrust of liberal argument that we have an absolute duty to provide these things crumbles away. All that is left is a commendable desire to do so - but it lacks the appeal to 'rights' that enflames most liberals.
I don't know any liberals who say that we have an absolute duty as opposed to just a moral imperative and in many cases a recognising of "there, but for the grace of God" (or blind chance or whatever the belief system of the speaker is).
Also:
quote:
Hermit wrote:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are, so by liberal I mean lefties who want the State to become a gigantic, obese, Robin Hood with nanny tendencies ... taking more money from those who earn it and throwing it at the poor.
I'll accept that as long as you accept conservatives to mean righties who want a pax Americana, discrimination on whatever grounds desired by those with power and every man for himself and damn the long term consequences. Yes, I am presenting an inflamatory misrepresentation and one I don't hold to, but it's about the leftist equivalent to your statement. (From what you say of Republicans, the major difference between the left and the right is whether it is worse to have waste in the safety net (left) or to have the safety net fail for a larger number of people (right). I'd rather a more reliable net although you will never get complete coverage.
Oh, and as for the American economy, remind me what the level of American military spending is please. Also try wandering into some of the black neigbourhoods in downtown LA. (Actually, I don't think it's that bad, although I prefer the British system in most cases)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Hermit wrote:
quote:
I think I've heard that Australians have different meanings of what liberals and conservatives are
Actually I believe that the Americans are unique in using the political term 'liberal' as a sort of grab bag which includes progressives, centrists, social activists, those who thought the New Deal was a good idea, anybody from Vermont and all those who are deemed not to be 'fighting the good fight'.
The OED puts it quite well
quote:
5. Of political opinions: Favourable to changes and reforms tending in the direction of democracy. Hence epithet of a party; opp. to Conservative
One might add that the term originally referred to many free market capitalists opposed to the constrictions of trusts and old family compacts upon the free flow of commerce.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
There are many advantages to being Canadian, prime among which is our character-building weather (it's quite warm today! only -19°C!!) and our fine Canadian wines. Another useful reality is that currently two of our major parties are actually called the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.
This means that, when we wish to hurl ideological abuse, or caricaturize opinions, we need to be more precise in our language (e.g. free-market Liberal, left-wing Liberal, red Tory, socially conservative Conservative etc etc) as simple use of the adjective is often mistaken for a partisan indicator.
As Rabbit points out, USian-speak often uses the term liberal to describe a grab-bag of attitudes and things the speaker disdains, and discussion quickly descends into a language using almost exclusively red-herring vocabulary.
Might I thank Rabbit for his interesting menu description?? I was planning a dinner party for tomorrow and he has given me much food for thought....
As far as the OP is concerned, Scripture suggests that there is little need or justification for private property. We are exhorted to hold all things in common and to give away all that we have- eye of the needle and all that. There is, alas for for most of us with any property as well as for the bankers and investment counsellors in the pew, very little qualification and not much to suggest that certain classes of property are exempt from Divine Instruction. Discussing this issue some years ago with an Orthodox monk of my acquaintance (now gathered up to the great Skete above), he told me that economic sins were much like sexual sins in many ways, rarely entirely inescapable and that all we could really hope for was not to be in too much trouble.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
And might *I* add that there is a connection between love and public institutions (forthcoming bit about this) and that leaving the welfare of men and women to the accidental vagueries of the magic hand which redistributes wealth in a world of free markets is not loving. Hence, perhaps God loves it less.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam.:
Does God prefer liberal or conservative policies?
This is another question entirely.
May I venture that he thinks there's a bit of truth in both of them? And God's also clever enough to know that it's not just a case of "liberal" or "conservative".
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Just what we need, an equal division of the cake 'just because'.
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
What cake? Will you preach for it? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803
|
Posted
quote:
Does God like liberals or conservatives better? Neither, he likes us all the same.
Does God prefer liberal or conservative policies?This is another question entirely.
Well, that's actually what I meant the discussion to be about. I was trying to be humorous in the way it was asked, but I guess that fell flat.
quote:
Ah, you mean *that* sort of liberal. If you cook like you write, I'm not sure your guests will be able to digest all that roast pork served with marmelade and Rocky Road ice cream finished off with a shot of smoked salmon floating in cream soda.
You've been spying on me.
quote:
I think society is something that can grow, change, evolve. We shouldn't look to a book written 2000 years ago for social policy (not that the bible is irrelevant today, God is eternal, but we have to take it in the context of the time it was written).
Charity may have worked in dealing with social problems in the past, but will it work now?
I would say that charity much beyond the bare necessities is actually harmful to people nowadays, especially for those devoted to drugs. They have no motivation to change if they're handed all they need for survival AND money for drugs.
quote:
You mean those surpluses that hunter gatherers didn't have ... You mean those surpluses that the Romans didn't have so they couldn't give their citizens "Bread and Circuses"? You mean the surpluses that didn't create e.g. Versailles, the Vatican (to pick the two most extreme examples I've seen) and many other palaces and monuments? You mean the surpluses in man-hours that didn't eist that were not used to create the Pyramids, Cuzco, Maccu Pichu, the Aztec Pyramids, ...
Hmmmm ... neither capitalist nor socialist societies that depended on conquering other peoples and demanding heavy tributes, with the exception of the Vatican.
quote:
I'll accept that as long as you accept conservatives to mean righties who want a pax Americana, discrimination on whatever grounds desired by those with power and every man for himself and damn the long term consequences. Yes, I am presenting an inflamatory misrepresentation and one I don't hold to, but it's about the leftist equivalent to your statement.
Fair enough, Autobailer, I'll try to tame my inflammatory statements. To me a liberal tends to favor "redistribution" of wealth through taxation together with an extensive safety net, a conservative believes there's some smaller need for taxation and a lean safety net, a libertarian believes in no safety net and little govt or taxation except for absolutely necessary services like roads, fire, police.
quote:
Actually I believe that the Americans are unique in using the political term 'liberal' as a sort of grab bag which includes progressives, centrists, social activists,
Good point, perhaps we should all define our meanings a bit, Rabbit. quote:
As far as the OP is concerned, Scripture suggests that there is little need or justification for private property. We are exhorted to hold all things in common and to give away all that we have- eye of the needle and all that.
Augustine the Aleut, while Acts describes the first Christian community in those terms, that's not said to be a mandate for all future societies. And while Jesus exhorted individual people to give their excess property to poor people in great need of the basics of life, that doesn't necessarily mean that a nation must forcibly take away most of the income and property even of non-Christians and make everyone share equally, whether they've earned it or not.
--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine
Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Hermit-- I simply made reference to those texts to emphasize that the Marching Orders we have, and the Directions with which we've been provided, are quite uncomfortable for those of us with property. They need to be faced. They do not suggest that it should be a state apparatus of any sort that arrange redistribution, but neither does Scripture forbid or preclude it (cf. Isaiah 61, where Cyrus is the Lord's instrument to reprove Israel).
These texts, which are what we've got, have few qualifiers and are not intended to take into account our economic structures, let alone our personal political preferences or even what one would say is simple common sense. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Consider the lilies of the field.
They are uncomfortable, and difficult, and challenging, and that's how it is.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The basic problem with the communitarian argument is that it doesn't generalise beyond the specifics of modern society.
Huh? I must be dense today, because I don't have a clue what you mean by this. Could you try again?
quote:
It is only because modern technology (and capitalism!) has given us the enormous surpluses that they can be taxed to provide the community goods and support to the poor. Once this is recognised, the central thrust of liberal argument that we have an absolute duty to provide these things crumbles away. All that is left is a commendable desire to do so - but it lacks the appeal to 'rights' that enflames most liberals.
Ah, yes, communitarian arguments don't appeal to rights, they appeal to duties, which are much less appealing, don't you think? We all want to make sure we get whatever we have a right to have, but are much less concerned about doing whatever it is that we have a duty to do. Nevertheless, I think that reframing political discussion from rights to duties would be helpful.
For example, I don't know that addicts have a right to receive treatment for their addictions. I do think that we, as a community, have a duty to provide treatment for them.
I don't know that foster children have a right to support systems that go beyond their 18th birthday. I do think that we, as a community, have a duty to provide it.
I don't know that people who go hiking on mountains in the winter have a right to expect anyone to rescue them if they get into trouble on the mountain. I do think we, as a community, have a duty to rescue them if we can.
I don't know that people who choose to live in the urban/wilderness interface have a right to expect firefighters from surrounding states to fly in and protect their lives and homes during wildfire season. I do think we, as a community, have a duty to protect their lives and homes from wildfires.
Of course, the individuals also have duties to the communities. The person living in the urban/wilderness interface has a duty to maintain a defensible zone around their home; the winter hiker has a duty to have appropriate gear and experience and an emergency plan.
The greater your resources, the greater your duty to the community. "To whom much is given, much is required." A mentally ill or mentally retarded child has virtually no duties at all; the rest of us have the duty to see that the child receives whatever care is needed. A healthy, wealthy, intelligent, educated adult has many duties to his community.
The argument, "I don't use that park, so I shouldn't have to pay for it; I don't go mountain climbing, so I shouldn't have to pay for rescuing stupid mountaineers who get lost; I don't have children, so I shouldn't have to pay for the schools" is just plain stupid.
As John Donne put it:
quote:
No man is an island intire of itselfe, every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is lesse, as well as if a promontorie were, as well as if a mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any man's death diminshes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
All of the righteous people I read about in the bible were rewarded for thier righteousness by riches and/or power. And God ask for no more than 10% back, which was given to the "church", which in turn was responsible for feeding the poor and the "stranger amongst you". God did not set up secular politics or political parties, therefore he probably looks on both with at worst contempt, at best disappointment.
Most people seem to forget that Rome was a democracy (Julius made it into the senate because of political support from the poor - see Seutonis "The 12 Cseasars"). Paul was a jew who was also roman citizen, yet didn't encourage christians to be activein, or concerned with secular politics.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
All of the righteous people I read about in the bible were rewarded for thier righteousness by riches and/or power.
Jonathan, friend of David and son of Saul, met an untimely end through no fault of his own.
I see no sign that Job's first set of kids were anything but righteous.
Joseph, Mary's husband the stepfather, as it were, of our Lord, received neither riches nor power.
John the Baptist got his head cut off for being righteous.
Finally, by the time Jesus was in his public ministry, the Roman Empire had ceased to be a republic and was a dictatorship.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Paul was a jew who was also roman citizen, yet didn't encourage christians to be activein, or concerned with secular politics.
Errr, OK. But neither did he discourage Christians from being active in or concerned with politics. Even when in, for example Romans 13, where he is talking about governments. Infact, he says "The authorities that exist have been established by God", which by my mind means that a) the concept of "secular politics" is a falsehood as they are the work of God, and b) that if we are to participate in the work of God then we must be involved in politics.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
And God ask for no more than 10% back, which was given to the "church", which in turn was responsible for feeding the poor and the "stranger amongst you". God did not set up secular politics or political parties, therefore he probably looks on both with at worst contempt, at best disappointment.
I don't think the tithe was used to feed the poor. I think it was used to support the priests and Levites.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amphibalus
Cloak of anonymity
# 5351
|
Posted
After taking early retirement from full-time parish work because of disability, I spent a short time in local politics. The following observations occur to me - not that they have any great philosophical weight, they are just from my experience.
Politics, at least local politics, is a practical and pragmatic science. OK, at the big quarterly full Council meetings people get up on their hind legs and bray a party line - but that's the difference between Politics and politics. All the real work is done in committees and seminars where party lines are both a hindrance and an irrelevance. The guy whose dustbin hasn't been emptied, the community in danger of losing their school, the kids in a small village with no youth facilities and no transport - they don't want party Politics, they just want someone to listen - and do something, if possible.
Within this system, there are honest, caring, compassionate Christians across the spectrum of all parties. They are in politics because they want to do something to fulfil the command to 'Love one another... etc.' (And frustration at an over-bureaucratised governmental system is a shared experience no matter which party you are - or whichever party is in power!)
Christians are in politics to bear a witness - not to a party platform, but to a vision of God's love and grace at work in the everyday stuff of human existence. They get things right (and wrong) as often as anyone else, but that isn't because they are liberal or conservative, libertarian or communitarian, it's because they are humans with a God-inspired sense of what humans can be, and they are helping other humans (hopefully!) to be more fully human.
I don't know whether that helps or hinders the debate...
...but I will add one brief (doctrinaire?) reflection (which immediately tells you where I stand on the spectrum!). My understanding of capitalism in its purest economic form is that it can only be fuelled and sustained by continuous growth. Well, the earth, it seems to me, is a finite resource, and cannot be continually exploited, however responsibly, so the premise is doomed to extinction anyway. (It chilled me somewhat to note that one of B*sh's reasons for going to the moon again was to garner its mineral resources ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) )
The profit motive, in the meanwhile, is most easily satisfied by an efficiency of production which - as a by-product, no doubt - requires the workforce to be expressed in terms of productive work units - not as human beings with unfulfilled goals and aspirations of their own. (In much the same way as children are being treated as 'learning-units-in-the-process-of-becoming-productive-work-units' in our schools today.)
I know that this is very simplistic, but then I never was an over-complicated person - 'a bear of very little brain'! Maybe that's why I didn't last long on the Council ![[Frown]](frown.gif) .
--------------------
I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand
Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain
He was looking for the place called Lee Ho Fook’s
Going to get a big dish of beef chow mein. (Warren Zevon)
Posts: 1471 | From: Home of Ronnie Radford's boot | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
Just to clear thi up -the poor had a voice in Roman government:
early rome voting rights quote:
The plebeians were mainly the poor, but the wealthy plebeians led the plebeian opposition. They had two aims:
Access to the priesthoods and offices of the state (especially the consulship).
Redress of economic distress. In particular, the poor plebeians wanted debt relief and the distribution of state land.
3) Methods and Institutions of Plebeians
The plebeians (the majority of citizens) used was to withdraw from the city until they got their way. This was called secession. This happened three times and they threatened to do so on others.
They also had an assembly of the plebs, whose resolutions (plebiscites) were at first binding on the plebs alone.
They elected officials called tribunes, who eventually acquired the right to step any magistrate's activities in the city. This was called a veto (from the Latin word for "I forbid"). Tribunes could also propose resolutions in the assembly of the plebs.
populares and optimates quote:
...from the days of the brothers Gracchus onwards - there were two political parties, the populares ('people's party') and the optimates ('senatorial party').
The populares were for the extension of citizenship to provincials, for the cancellation of debt, and for the distribution of land. The optimates were the opposing conservative force, defending the traditions of Rome and the existing order.
... to speak on behalf of the Cisalpine Gauls or Samnites who did not enjoy citizenship meant, that, if they would ever be granted it, their loyalty - and hence their votes - would be with you.
...to put it bluntly, no 'socialists' in Rome.
No one acted on behalf of the poor, but rather sought to gain poor votes.
Also, I was wrong to use the word "All" when talking about the righteous. Ezekiel comes to mind. as well as some of the firmer examples Mousethief pointed out. As for voting- if you consider voting as an expresion of "the will of the people", then there examples in the bible. Three that come to mind are:
- when the jews tired of the governmental system of priests and judges that God set up and desired to have a king "like all of the other nations".
- When the jews voted for Barabas rather than Jesus
- When the apostles "drew lots" to determine who would replace Judas.
These are all examples of people 'voting', and they don't turn out well. God allowed these things to manifest, so you could say it was all according to God's will, but that doesn't mean he wanted things to turn out the way they did. Indeed, concerning the first example, he warned them not to go that route, and in the last example he simply chose his own replacement.
I like Bush and feel he is getting hazed a lot more than he deserves, but I will not vote for him. I didn't vote for him in the previous election despite my extreme dislike for Gore ( though I was tempted to register just to vote against Gore). Whatever happens may be God's will, but sometimes his will is to let us suffer from our foolish actions. The government God set up was rejected -and would still be rejected by people today. Through majority vote.
God allows us complete freedom to vote everyday, in everyway - that doesn't mean he encourages it.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
- When the jews voted for Barabas rather than Jesus
- When the apostles "drew lots" to determine who would replace Judas.
These are all examples of people 'voting', and they don't turn out well.
1. If the Jews had voted to release Jesus instead of Barrabbas then he wouldn't have died for our sins and we'd all go to Hell.
2. What bad result came out of the drawing of lots for the replacement of Judas?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
- when the jews tired of the governmental system of priests and judges that God set up and desired to have a king "like all of the other nations".
- When the jews voted for Barabas rather than Jesus
- When the apostles "drew lots" to determine who would replace Judas.
These are all examples of people 'voting',
Voting? Drawing lots is voting? A mob out for blood is voting?
You've got a funny definition of the word.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
1. If the Jews had voted to release Jesus instead of Barrabbas then he wouldn't have died for our sins and we'd all go to Hell.
2. What bad result came out of the drawing of lots for the replacement of Judas?
1. Maybe if they had voted for Jesus, he wouldn't have had to have died for us...
2. Nothing terrible, I suppose -but what was his name again?
Josephine: There are three ways you can interpret the casting ( I errantly used "drew") of lots:
1) Casting a vote, ala greek style democracy.
2) an attempt at divining God's will - which to my mind turned out to have failed. God's will was obviously Paul. Besides, divination is an abomination-unless God changed that rule just for this instance.
3) A system of random chance, which would be an incredibly poor way to decide who is the most deserving of what was one of the higher offices in the "church". Is that how the Pope gets chosen?
A vote is when you express your desire or will when presented with choices. The governor presented the "mob" with a choice, and the individuals spoke up and let him know which they preferred. If that isn't a vote, then I haven't the foggiest idea what one is. Please educate me.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
nonpropheteer, I'm not sure I read your earlier post correctly. It sort of implied that you don't vote in Presidential elections, or may you don't vote at all. Is that what you said?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
2) an attempt at divining God's will - which to my mind turned out to have failed. God's will was obviously Paul.
Hmmmm - possible tangent here, but I can't think of any Bibilcal passages where Paul (or anyone else) claims that he was the 12th Apostle. The word "apostle" is used for a fair few people, including Paul, but the 12 were a smaller group. If anything, I think Paul takes pride in not belonging to it.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I have always considered Paul an apostle, as one who saw the risen Christ and was specially commissioned by Him. (His vision of Christ was on the road to Damascus, of course.) The word is used other places in the NT to mean "messengers", such as II Cor. 8:23, John 13:16, Heb. 3:1, and Paul was certainly commissioned by Jesus to win souls and establish churches (I Cor. 15:9-10).
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Ah, yes, communitarian arguments don't appeal to rights, they appeal to duties, which are much less appealing, don't you think? We all want to make sure we get whatever we have a right to have, but are much less concerned about doing whatever it is that we have a duty to do. Nevertheless, I think that reframing political discussion from rights to duties would be helpful.
[etc...]
That was extremely well put, josephine. Thank you.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Nonpropheteer- you might be interested to learn that some Popes (of Alexandria, that is, if not of Rome) are elected by lot. If my memory serves me well, names of monks nominated by the Holy Synod are placed in a chalice, and one is selected by a child.
A quick review of the members of the House of Bishops raises questions on whether or not Anglicans might not usefully imitate this procedure.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
2) an attempt at divining God's will - which to my mind turned out to have failed. God's will was obviously Paul.
Hmmmm - possible tangent here, but I can't think of any Bibilcal passages where Paul (or anyone else) claims that he was the 12th Apostle. The word "apostle" is used for a fair few people, including Paul, but the 12 were a smaller group. If anything, I think Paul takes pride in not belonging to it.
There is a passage, don't know the verse offhand (I Corinthians I think) where Paul claims to be the "least of these" [apostles]. He alo established the guidelines for who can or cannot be Apostles.
Alan: - I do not, nor will I ever, vote in federal elections, and I move around so much (rarely more than three years in one community) that I don't feel qualified to vote in local elections.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
Sorry I got tangital here - I was paying attention to three different threads and perhaps posted the above on the wrong one. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Augustine: When you say the Popes are picked by 'lots', how does it work? Is it a voting mechanism?
Given that some liberal voices are responsible for things such as removing the 10 commandments from public view,attempts to remove christ from christmas, christian clubs from schools, etc - I would think that God liked conservatives better. However, those same liberal voices are also concerned with helping the poor and protecting the environment.
So I think God likes some things liberals and conservatives do, and hates other things they do(or don't do). But all in all, I think he loves the people based on christian charity rather than political ideology.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Patriarchal elections in Alexandria have had a few variations over the years, partly due to interference by the authorities (Byzantine, caliphal, Ottoman, British, Egyptian etc etc).
My understanding of the current process is that names of eligible monks are written on ballots inserted in capsules and placed in a chalice. After prayers, a child approachs the altar, is blessed, and then removes one of the capsules and the name is read to the Holy Synod, which then acclaims the choice indicated by the Holy Spirit.
An Ethiopian friend informs me that this method was sometimes used in his homeland (which he now calls his former homeland as he believes that a country with a Christian monarch has a greater claim on him, despite our abominable weather and the fact that his daughters pay no attention to him and wear revealing swimwear in the summer, the nature of which would give his mother a heart attack and causes him unending anguish etc etc etc) in disputed elections in monasteries. This conversation took place last year when members to the Citizens Assembly in British Columbia (which is being summoned to consider possible electoral reforms), were chosen beginning with a computerized random selection from the electoral rolls, as a means of avoiding partisan bitterness in the selection process (http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/inaction/process/selection).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Alan: - I do not, nor will I ever, vote in federal elections
You take no part in choosing who will represent you in the federal sphere (would that include Senate and Congress? it clearly includes the President who represents the nation in the world). Logic says that you, therefore, take no interest in how you are represented ... no interest in foreign policy, federal economic policies etc. Is this true?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803
|
Posted
I agree that we as a society have duties to help those who would die otherwise ... but we don't have a duty to provide luxuries.
Concerning Paul as apostle, apparently the designation became a bit more fluid than only 12, since Matthias disappeared, then Barnabas and Paul appeared - apparently there were apostles and superapostles (NIV) or cheifest apostles (KJV):
(NIV)Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God–
Romans 11:13
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry
1 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
2 Corinthians 12:11
I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the "superapostles," even though I am nothing. 12 The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.
--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine
Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
St. Matthias's feast day is February 24.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You take no part in choosing who will represent you in the federal sphere (would that include Senate and Congress? it clearly includes the President who represents the nation in the world). Logic says that you, therefore, take no interest in how you are represented ... no interest in foreign policy, federal economic policies etc. Is this true?
I am not represented no matter who gets elected to any federal office. For example, I would like to see more governmental support of religious (okay, Christian) charities - such as Christian message based homeless shelters and soup kitchens as a means of helping the poor rather than secular based organizations. I would like to see more choice in paying your taxes: In the US, when you file your tax returns, you are given the option of donating to the "Presidential Election fund" (or something like that). Iwould like to see similar options for "donating" (instead of forced taxation) to the military, social programs, etc. I also believe in strong local/state governments and a (at least domestically) weaker federal government.
The federal government here has no legitimate power over things such as speed limits or drug laws, but they use tax dollars forcibly stolen from me to blackmail the state governments into following "federal guidelines" and don't care what the citizens of a particular state want or think. In virtually every case, no matter who I voted for, the result of those actions would be the same.
Additionally, federal elections are kinda rigged: We claim that the reason a candidate won't take a firm stand on an issue such as "legalization of marijuana" is because the people wouldn't elect him/her. The sad truth is that it doesn't matter whom we would or wouldn't elect - if a politician makes a stand against his party line he loses political support, not necessarily the support of the people (i.e. John McClain). And political support is what gets you elected on the federal level, not 'votes'. If you don't have political support, your name won't even make it onto the ballot.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
You can give money to whatever charitable cause you like, and deduct it from your taxes.
Also, though I don't care for Bush, he has been outspoken in favor of what he calls "faith-based organizations" receiving federal benefits for the good works they do. I should think you would wish to support that in view of your comments.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Hard to talk about forms of government and political trajectories with somebody who doesn't believe in government
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
I think that by and large liberal policies are more in accord with Godly values.
A society in which the law of the jungle applies, in which the strong flourish and the weak are trodden on, is rightly thought of as primitive. In fact it is hardly a society at all. It seems to me that many conservative values (and especially the way they deride the "nanny state" and dislike taxation) are a step back towards the law of the jungle.
Liberals believe that there is such a thing as society, that humanity works best when some resources are shared, and when there is some diversion of resources to those who would otherwise lose out, that some things are better done communally than in individually, that we shuold never stop learning, that people should have the opportunity to acheive their potential, that we should work towards a society of justice, harmony and love.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I am not represented no matter who gets elected to any federal office...etc, at some length.
Oh dear Lord in Heaven, I agreed with that entire post. Just shoot me now.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
We still love you, but we don't respect you any more, so sorry. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
The federal funding of "faith-based organizations" sounds dangerous to me. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
If a church agency (child care center, e.g.) were to accept such funding, and become dependent on it (and you know that can very easily happen) then it would cease to be _faith_ based.
Yes, I know the Bushies say that will never happen. They also say that there were WMD in Iraq, too.
I am very sceptical of federal funding for "faith-based organizations" We all know the golden rule - "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
I don't like it either, I was just using it as an example of what NP said he wanted.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Continuing the Paul tangent if I may. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that Paul was an apostle. Lots of evidence for that, as quoted above. What I don't see anywhere in the Bible is the claim that Paul was really the 12th of the 12, and Matthias was a mistake. (In fact, I seem to remember that Acts - which is pretty pro-Paul - doesn't call Paul an apostle at all, in order to keep the distinction clear between the 12 and other Christian leaders.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Oh, yes, I agree with that. I have never heard that concept of Paul as the "twelfth". I think his position as an apostle was unique.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
