Ship of Fools: The Loss of the Moral High Ground

Thread: The Loss of the Moral High Ground Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024142

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Fred Clark argues in Why the white evangelical religious right can no longer presume to claim moral superiority that the Religious Right is now seen in effect as the clothes-less Emperor.

quote:
For decades, the religious right has been pre-occupied with two issues above all else: abortion and homosexuality. And on both of those issues, they have wielded power and influence by claiming the moral high ground — claiming to represent the godly, “biblical” truth of right and wrong. Anyone who disagreed with them on these issues was portrayed as less moral, less godly, less good.

and

quote:
But not any more. That claim is still being asserted, but it is no longer being accepted.

Part of what happened on Tuesday was that millions of people rejected that claim on moral grounds. This was not just a political or pragmatic disagreement that preserved their essential claim of godly morality. It was a powerful counter-claim — the claim that the religious right is advocating immoral, unjust and cruelly unfair policies on both of its hallmark issues. Knee-jerk opposition to legal abortion and to gay rights weren’t just rejected as bad policy, but as bad morals — as being on the wrong side of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, biblical vs. unbiblical, moral vs. immoral.

Simply asserting that something is bad or wrong ornot allowed is no longer accepted. Now that we have better communication, anyone can see, if he/she wishes to, that there are other moral positions stated in those writings that are taken as Authority.

In the Bible, for instance, there are thousands of statements about the obligation to help the poor, the orphan, the widow, the stranger, compared to a mere six that mention homosexuality at all - and those six are arguable, not absolute, unlike the above thousands.

Outside observers see too many Christian groups espousing hatred of gays while refusing to help (or just mildly helping) those they are ORDERED to help by God and Jesus.

What is the cost to the church overall of this problem? After all, it infects the hierarchy of the Anglican Communion as much as it infects the fundagelicals.

Cripes, even our local Baptist den has begun to see that it isn't all about your personal revelation. At some point, it has to be about what you actually DO.

And if what you do is seen as a negative, then what you say isn't worth much.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Steering clear of the Dead Horse ...

The stridency of many of the evangelical right in the US on hot-button issues of personal morality has always been unbalanced. I've told this story before here, but it fits in well.

In his "angry young man" phase, one of the minority of evangelical voices in the US (Jim Wallis) opposed to this kind of approach used to get a few speaking engagements in conservative churches. He had a visual aid - a bible with large sections removed from it. He'd open it, flip through it to show that removed verses from pages, whole pages, even books. They were shocked. Then got some shocked some more by the message.

"This bible has had cut out of it every scripture I could find which refers to God's heart for the poor and the marginalised - and the required response of Christians. Is this your bible?".

He didn't get invited back all that much. Folks were more upset by the fact that he had defaced a bible than by what he had to say. And that really is "shadow and substance".

Christians always lose moral authority when they proclaim a message which ignores the poor and the marginalised. And deservedly so. Even folks who know very little about Christianity know that isn't the Jesus way. Outcasts, lepers of all kinds, the disregarded, these got welcomed. The self-righteous religious leaders often got a tongue-lashing.

Of course I simplify. The picture is not as monochrome as that everywhere. But it is a stark reminder that it really should not be like that anywhere. Finger-pointing self-righteousness is toxic to Christian faith.

If this election causes some on the evangelical right to wake up a bit to the damage they have done to Christian witness in the US, that's a very good thing in my book. Some recognition of error, some repentance, and a determined move away from the personalised, privatised, judgmental rhetoric would be a considerable aid in healing some of the deep divisions in the US.

[ 10. November 2012, 06:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Hmmm - IF the margin of victory of the left had been large, then perhaps this sort of logic would be appropriate. But given that the margin was very small, it seems remarkably unwise to argue that it, in itself, justifies this response. And given that the bible and church history is replete with examples of where one side spent many DECADES crying in the wilderness before their view came to general acceptance, it's very foolish to jump to such conclusions over one election result: a better Republican candidate and a more effective campaign earlier might well have given the opposite result.

Having said that, the failure of the religious right to realise that at some point their use of scripture is unhelpful 'bible bashing', is frustrating. AFAICS, it's the work of the Spirit to convince and convict, according to John. As a result I seldom quote scripture when I'm with a non-Christian, focusing rather on the 'secular' arguments and looking to unpack their own logic.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

My thought as well, ES.

The margins are slight, and few subscribe to the polarized extremes that are so often articulated.

Supporting the value of happy marriages and stable families is not the same thing as bashing everything that varies from that picture. Political thought that encourages individual initiative and strong businesses, or that criticizes the abuses of the welfare system, does not necessarily reflect a lack of compassion for the poor.

We live in a sound-byte world that tends to reduce complex realities to polarizing black-and-white postulates. Neither truth nor harmony are found at these extremes.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Freddy
Political thought that encourages individual initiative and strong businesses, or that criticizes the abuses of the welfare system, does not necessarily reflect a lack of compassion for the poor.

Not necessarily, no, but often, yes.

What it does display, though, is a certain naivite as to how certain powers with whose ultimate aims we would both disagree, can use the climate of suspicion of the poor, suspicion that is almost always totally unfounded, in order to deceive people of the nature and extent of the problem, so as to further their own agenda. Even the phrase "abuses of the welfare system" implies that these abuses are those of clients unjustifyably claiming, rather than those of their being denied benefits to which they are entitled, when the latter examples are arguably much more common than the former. As you say, we need to beware of soundbite policymaking.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I realise that a mild win is not a huge permanent change, BUT, having watched the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, which was a similar moving-away from stern religious authority among a population that was once reliably more-Catholic-than-Poland, I see a similar attitudinal shift south of the border.

Once people see that the self-proclaimed authorities don't actually live by the principles of their religion, the dam cracks.

Going back to JJ's comment, I saw a comment recently, which I'll have to find again to get the link, that, if one asked about "the working poor" there was very high support for their aid, even among the strongly evangelical, but "welfare" got a resounding thumbs down.

As usual, the right phrasing makes or breaks.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Agreed, JJ.

I think the difference when it comes to practice is actually slight. But the ideological difference is, I think, a difference between what people think will reduce these societal issues over the long term.

That is, conservative ideology emphasizes the benefits of strengthening the family and religion, increasing prosperity in general, supporting non-governmental aid efforts, and reducing crime. Liberal ideology emphasizes the benefits of government programs, laws to reduce inequality and prejudice, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, and access to education, among other things.

In practice these two approaches look quite similar and the reality is that they are almost always combined. But conservative critiques point out the flaws with one side of our practices, and liberals point out the flaws with the other.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Have they lost the high ground? Just because they claimed it does not mean they had it. You can't lose what you never had.

You gotta walk the talk for people to listen to you.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I think that the Catholic bishops have lost whatever high ground they may have had. The ruckus about contraceptive insurance was just the last straw - or was it the "Nuns on the Bus"?

But this is the first election in which the big voices of the Evangelical Right lost status. It will be a whle before they finally become "as the rest of us" - entitled to their own opinion, but not entitled to try to force it on everyone else.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Hmmm - IF the margin of victory of the left had been large, then perhaps this sort of logic would be appropriate. But given that the margin was very small, it seems remarkably unwise to argue that it, in itself, justifies this response.

The margin was about 2%. That was never considered razor-thin in political elections until the news media decided that a horse race was what they needed to hang their boilerplate narrative on. The traditional way of identifying a very rare "landslide" election was if the margin was 10%. Two percent is a comfortable victory by all traditional standards --- and actually massively more than I was imagining. I guess I had drunk enough of the Republican Kool Aid that I was pretty much expecting Obama to win the electoral college and lose the popular vote. If that had happened, your premise would at least not be vacuous. As it is...

--Tom Clune

[ 10. November 2012, 12:46: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Given the state of the economy it ought to have been possible for a competent opposition party to romp home. It was the social conservatism, as well as the economic illiteracy, of the Republican party that allowed the Democrats to win both the Presidency and the Senate. The impact of the bizarre Republican views about rape in particular put a lot of people off. That and the racism, obviously.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Outside observers see too many Christian groups espousing hatred of gays while refusing to help (or just mildly helping) those they are ORDERED to help by God and Jesus.

But the same can be said about any other cause that is supported either by conservative or liberal people... For example, there are too many Christian groups advocating environmentalism or animals rights, tough not doing anything to help the poor... there are groups advocating a "personal relationship with Christ", tough not helping the poor. Just because one part is given more emphasis then the other, doesn´t mean both are mutually exclusive. And most of all, just because some sermons can be filled with social gospel talk, that doesn´t mean the congregation and the preacher will do something concrete to help the poor. Being liberal on sexual issues doesn´t automatically makes anyone a defender of the poor and opressed in practice.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

So maybe MOST Christians haven't read the Bible.

The difference in this case is that the theocrats of the evangelical movement were demanding that even the non-religious should be forced to be in the no gays/never any legal abortion/stand up for miltary/never help any undeserving poor/worship the rich set - none of which is preached in the Bible.

And just why is environmental concern not considering the needs of the poor? Most of our environmental problems come from too much consumption by the rich (which in this case includes even the middle class) Oh, yeah, it also comes form too many people, hence the need for sex ed/contraceptives, also opposed by the self-defined moral highgrounders.

[ 10. November 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :

Maybe this flows from coming to this issue from a British perspective but I find the central thesis in the OP that Christians with concern for widowed, the orphan, the poor as being a different constituency to those with concerns over abortion and homosexuality rather unconvincing. Certainly in the UK you would see plenty of Christians who sees both sets of issues as flowing from their faith and biblical understanding.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Maybe this flows from coming to this issue from a British perspective but I find the central thesis in the OP that Christians with concern for widowed, the orphan, the poor as being a different constituency to those with concerns over abortion and homosexuality rather unconvincing. Certainly in the UK you would see plenty of Christians who sees both sets of issues as flowing from their faith and biblical understanding.

Same is true in the US. So painting it that way as the big difference between the parties and the candidates is not completely accurate.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

A similar point made in the New York Times.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

"The Christian right should have a natural inroad with Hispanics. The vast majority of Hispanics are evangelical or Catholic, and many of those are religious conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion."

The 2012 exit poll found more Hispanic voters (59%) supporting gay marriage in their state than opposing it (32%). This confirms ith the latest trends in Pew Research Center surveys of Hispanics . The same exit polls found that 66% Hispanics said abortion should be legal with only 28% saying it should be illegal.

These guys are kidding themsleves.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

As long as America is Roman, Babylonian, theocapitalist that is its ONLY moral ground.

As long as America spends, what 50% of the world's arms budget to keep what it's got, it's got no moral ground.

As long as the rich get richer ...

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

It looks to me like the Church has conceded the moral high ground to the Occupy movement.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Answering The Undiscovered Country: Obviously Fred is dealing with the American situation, in which the visible and noisy leaders of a particular wing of Christianity were far more interested in managing other people's sex lives than they were in dealing with the poor, et al.

Indeed, they were scornful of wasting one's time in helping those who failed to help themselves, confusing Ben Franklin with the Gospel writers. They blamed all the poor, et al., for being poor in the first place, and were Pharisaical in seeing everything as the fault of the poor, as opposed to the bankers and business people who put greed before country.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

From Joesphine's link

quote:
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.

Note that phrase "our message". Since when have the headlines of the good news of the gospel been about abortion and gay relationships? Since when has that been "our message".

Here is are the headlines of "our message". Good news for the poor. Release of the captives. Recovery of sight for the blind. Setting at liberty those who are oppressed. Proclaiming the Lord's favour. (Luke 4)

Reading Albert Mohler Jr, how is someone from outside the Christian community supposed to know any of that?

Incidentally, I'm sure Albert Mohler Jr doesn't really think that what he said is "our message". Baptists know their bibles better than that. So what strange process of politicisation produced such an unbalanced and unguarded remark?

Of course Shipmates are right to point out that there are folks with conservative views on gay marriage and abortion who fully embrace the Luke 4 headlines and live them out. Most of the folks I have met who are like that do not get in the faces of folks they don't know on such matters.

I'm thinking right now of a church I know which operates as a foodbank distribution centre. I know they provide active hands on support both to a number of LGBT folks in need, also to single mothers who have had abortions. A number of quite conservative folks in that church are building friendships that way. A good friend who goes there says that the helpers are being changed by the helping out. They are becoming more understanding, less judgmental, better at taking people as they find them. He feels that because they are lifting more than a finger to help, a burden is being lifted off their hearts. A compassion has been awakened.

And that's the way to go.

[ 11. November 2012, 00:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

I honestly think that many of these people are not equipped to live in a free country.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Regarding Mohler, I find it hard to pierce into his heart, but he's also been such an integral part of the fundamentalist revolution, both within the SBC and through it within America, that I find it hard to believe that he can keep at what he does without thinking that he speaks for True Christianity™.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Maybe this flows from coming to this issue from a British perspective but I find the central thesis in the OP that Christians with concern for widowed, the orphan, the poor as being a different constituency to those with concerns over abortion and homosexuality rather unconvincing. Certainly in the UK you would see plenty of Christians who sees both sets of issues as flowing from their faith and biblical understanding.
Same is true in the US. So painting it that way as the big difference between the parties and the candidates is not completely accurate.

In the U.S. that hasn't really proven to be true in the recent past. Attempts over several years to get the religious right to campaign on any social issues except abortion and gay marriage were rejected. The difference now is that the younger generation of evangelicals refuse to exclude poverty, widows and orphans from the agenda and are not as concerned with gay marriage and are willing to have exclusions for abortion. The old guard no longer has the power they once had.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Pulling this thread abck to the first page to add this link:

Evangelical = anti-abortion, anti-gay white Protestant

Good comment on why the black evangelicals did not join the far-right campaign to oust Obama. The second part deals with the idea that Obama, religiously speaking, is operating within the "Bebbington Quadrilateral" which describes an evangelical:

quote:

Conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be termed crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Birdsall looks at Obama’s faith in light of those four evangelical emphases and concludes that:

Obama is clearly not a secret Muslim or anything other than what he claims to be: a committed Christian. For evangelicals, the commander-in-chief is a brother in Christ.

quote:
Except, of course, that Bebbington’s historical view no longer has much of anything to do with the American voting bloc that replaced the vibrant stream of Protestantism known as evangelicalism. Today, that tribal voting bloc defines an evangelical as a White Protestant who opposes legal abortion and civil rights for LGBT people.

That’s three strikes against Obama right there.

This (obviously?) does not apply to evangelicals or con-evos in a different place, such as the UK, but those people weren't voting in the US. Another example of US exceptionalism.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Answering The Undiscovered Country: Obviously Fred is dealing with the American situation, in which the visible and noisy leaders of a particular wing of Christianity were far more interested in managing other people's sex lives than they were in dealing with the poor, et al.

Indeed, they were scornful of wasting one's time in helping those who failed to help themselves, confusing Ben Franklin with the Gospel writers. They blamed all the poor, et al., for being poor in the first place, and were Pharisaical in seeing everything as the fault of the poor, as opposed to the bankers and business people who put greed before country.

This comes across as such a load of crap. What I hear you saying is that good Christians don't go into other folks' homes to make sure they are having sex right but to rob them. How about staying out of both the bedroom and the wallet? Live your life the way you think you ought and put your own money where your mouth is. If you can't do that then at least have the decency to just go pound sand.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

".... rob them." ???? Talk about a load of crap. Surely you don't think that taxation is robbery.

Based upon the high ground of personal freedom, there are strong reasons for the government to grant adult, consenting gays and lesbians exactly the same rights as eveyone else. Likewise, goverment should let women have complete control over the decision as to whether or not to carry a foetus to term.

However, taxation, in one form or another, is absolutely essential to a functioning od government. We can quibble over the details regarding the mechanics and level of taxation, and we can argue about the need for certain expeditures, but taxation, per se, is in no wise robbery.

[ 16. November 2012, 04:22: Message edited by: ldjjd ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
[QB] ".... rob them." ???? Talk about a load of crap. Surely you don't think that taxation is robbery.

Not if it is for doing that which the government is instructed to do in the constitution. And that's all it should do.

quote:
Based upon the high ground of personal freedom, there are strong reasons for the government to grant adult, consenting gays and lesbians exactly the same rights as eveyone else.

Governments don't grant rights. But, anyway, if the two women who live near me are having sex with one another it may be a sin against God but I'm at a loss as to why it's a sin against me.

quote:
Likewise, goverment should let women have complete control over the decision as to whether or not to carry a foetus to term.

I don't believe my mother ever had the right to kill me unless I was about to kill her.

quote:
However, taxation, in one form or another, is absolutely essential to a functioning od government. We can quibble over the details regarding the mechanics and level of taxation, and we can argue about the need for certain expeditures, but taxation, per se, is in no wise robbery.

The constitution, not the bible, says what our government should do.

I find those who say Christians ought not use government to get in the bedroom or the medicine cabinet to impose our values but we should use government to impose our values of charity and other stuff to be repulsive hypocrites. Give me Christians who border on anarchy in their politics. They are the ones really worth listening to.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
".... rob them." ???? Talk about a load of crap. Surely you don't think that taxation is robbery.
Not if it is for doing that which the government is instructed to do in the constitution. And that's all it should do.

The constitution has a stated purpose:

quote:
Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you don't believe in the stated purpose then you should object to the constitution.

All the government should be doing under the Constitution is following the goals of the Constitution and acting in line with that constitution - and 'Promote the general welfare' is a pretty massive mandate. If healthcare for all isn't promoting the general welfare then what on earth would be? Historically the problem the United States Government has had is that it hasn't done enough within its borders to promote the general welfare.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
".... rob them." ???? Talk about a load of crap. Surely you don't think that taxation is robbery.
Not if it is for doing that which the government is instructed to do in the constitution. And that's all it should do.
The constitution has a stated purpose:

quote:
Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If you don't believe in the stated purpose then you should object to the constitution.

All the government should be doing under the Constitution is following the goals of the Constitution and acting in line with that constitution - and 'Promote the general welfare' is a pretty massive mandate. If healthcare for all isn't promoting the general welfare then what on earth would be? Historically the problem the United States Government has had is that it hasn't done enough within its borders to promote the general welfare.

I've no doubt James Madison would disagree with you. In 1794 he stood on the floor of the house and said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

I can find in NT scripture where I am to expend the money of Mere Nick. I can't find where I'm to advocate the coercive use of power to expend the money of Justinian.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But Mere Nick is objecting to the fact that any of his hard-earned dollars that go in tax might go to help an undeserving person, whatever that may mean in terms of race, economic opportunity, gerrymendered constituency, abandonment by mate, health condition or sheer bad luck.

I don't know MN's political view, but I would be more impressed if he openly said that the government of the US should try to get out of spending more on defense than all the rest of the world combined, or that the same government should stick to regulating those forces that make life worse for him and his fellow citizens (i.e. the super-rich and the conniving banks)

I do know what Jesus had to say about legalistic reading of documents as a way of life.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

I don't know MN's political view . . .

Often times that makes two of us, except I'm probably against it.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

The problem that I have with the Constitution-only crowd is the same thing many folks have with extreme forms of Protestantism -- it's basically Bibliology, completely ignoring the massive amount of history since.

It is truly amazing that folks would seek to ignore the Civil War, for example, except as people of that time saw fit to enshrine its lessons in amendments to the Constitution. The notion that the Civil War failed to enshrine a new balance between the Federal government and the states strikes me as psychotic. Alternatively, one might say that it makes you one of the right-wing members of the SCOTUS. Go figure.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
[QB] But Mere Nick is objecting to the fact that any of his hard-earned dollars that go in tax might go to help an undeserving person, whatever that may mean in terms of race, economic opportunity, gerrymendered constituency, abandonment by mate, health condition or sheer bad luck.

I'm probably bothered more by your dollars being taken for those purposes than mine being taken. I don't mind helping someone out, if it is truly helping.

quote:
I would be more impressed if he openly said that the government of the US should try to get out of spending more on defense than all the rest of the world combined,

But, but, but, entangling alliances, troops all over the world, sticking our noses in everyone's business and kicking ass all the time costs serious money.

quote:
or that the same government should stick to regulating those forces that make life worse for him and his fellow citizens (i.e. the super-rich and the conniving banks)

Let the government get the log out of its own eye.
A conniving bank is charging us 3.875% for our mortgage. Obama is charging me over 8% for education debt. I prefer conniving bankers.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've no doubt James Madison would disagree with you. In 1794 he stood on the floor of the house and said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

That's actually, as far as we know, just a rough paraphrase of Madison by the Annals of Congress. Madison's actual words on the subject of providing aid to French refugees from the Hatian revolution (the subject under debate) are, as far as I know, lost to history.

[ 16. November 2012, 17:36: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Mere Nick,

Do you oppose all expenditures authorized by the "General Welfare" clause? If so, why do you think the clause became part of the Constitution?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've no doubt James Madison would disagree with you. In 1794 he stood on the floor of the house and said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

I can find in NT scripture where I am to expend the money of Mere Nick. I can't find where I'm to advocate the coercive use of power to expend the money of Justinian.

Let's play a game. The game is called "How much is it fair that Justinian pay to upkeep the society he lives in?"

Justinian is a Brit. The GDP per capita of Britain is somewhere between $35,000 and $40,000 per year. Before about 1750AD, the world GDP per capita was around $500 per head and fairly static. I am responsible for almost exactly none of this difference - I am merely lucky enough to live in 21st Century Britain. That difference has nothing to do with my ability or hard work, and everything to do with the society I'm lucky enough to live in, and government and taxes are how society exerts its will and maintains itself.

So a fair tax rate based on the proportion of my income that is luck based vs the proportion that is down to me would be around ($35,000-$500)/$35,000 or 98.6%

Now I'm not advocating a 98.6% tax rate. One of the reasons we do pretty well as a society is that we leave people with personal property so they have something to build on. But I am well aware that more than 95% of my income and wealth are down to the sheer dumb luck of me having been born in Britain in the late 20th Century. I hit the jackpot, and government is how we organise this ridiculous positive sum lottery I won. To not pay for others to be able to win the lottery would be ... ridiculously selfish.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've no doubt James Madison would disagree with you. In 1794 he stood on the floor of the house and said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
That's actually, as far as we know, just a rough paraphrase of Madison by the Annals of Congress. Madison's actual words on the subject of providing aid to French refugees from the Hatian revolution (the subject under debate) are, as far as I know, lost to history.

Thanks for the fascinating link. I read to the end of the section and found this little "gem" from Mr Giles.

quote:
Gentleman (said Mr G) appeal to our humanity. The appeal is out of place. That is not the question; but whether, organised as we are, under the Constitution, we have a right to make such a grant.

He then goes on to argue that it was more a matter for the Provincial Assemblies and so the whole decision gets remitted to a "Committee of the Whole".

So the argument was over who could be generous in this case, rather than the rights and wrongs of that generosity. It seems to have been generally accepted that generosity was in order. Indeed, Madison was clearly disposed to be generous.

I think the small government argument is that no government should raise a cent more in revenue than it needs to carry out its core responsibilities. Promoting the general welfare would appear to be a core responsibility, just as important as responsibility to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense" so that the more perfect union may "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

So the argument is a relative one, not an absolute one. Which policies in support of the core responsibilities have been supported by the electorate in choosing their representatives? How can they be afforded i.e. what are the implications for revenue raising. There do not seem to me to be any constitutional absolutes at work over the detail of that. The government of the US seems to me to be required to find a necessary balance (care and prudence) in the exercise of core responsibilities.

Meanness is a relative word as well. One person's meanness is another's prudence. But a generally perceived meanness of outlook will lose any group the moral high ground. Reaching way back to the OP, I think that's what has been going on. Meanness of outlook is perceived as a result of "our message".

[ 17. November 2012, 08:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

From a far away country, this looks like a silly argument. It's based on the presumption that the vast mass of the electorate vote according to the same single issue obsessions as the bloggist and other munshis on right and left have decided should have determined where they place their Xs. That isn't the case here. I don't believe it is in your country either.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The GDP per capita of Britain is somewhere between $35,000 and $40,000 per year. Before about 1750AD, the world GDP per capita was around $500 per head and fairly static.

Yes, but prices have gone up by a comparable amount as well. The modern $35,000 cannot buy 70 times as much as the 18th Century $500 could buy.

The true measure of increasing wealth is how much the money in one's pocket (or bank account) can actually buy, not the absolute numeric value on the notes (or statement).

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The GDP per capita of Britain is somewhere between $35,000 and $40,000 per year. Before about 1750AD, the world GDP per capita was around $500 per head and fairly static.
Yes, but prices have gone up by a comparable amount as well. The modern $35,000 cannot buy 70 times as much as the 18th Century $500 could buy.

The true measure of increasing wealth is how much the money in one's pocket (or bank account) can actually buy, not the absolute numeric value on the notes (or statement).

Historical estimates of GDP (like the ones on this Wikipedia page) are typically made in constant dollar terms, so price levels have already been accounted for.

The claim is that the value of the goods and services produced per capita per year before 1750 would be about $500 in today's money, not that it was worth $500 in the currency of the time (which wouldn't make sense anyway, since there were no US dollars before 1792.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks for the fascinating link. I read to the end of the section and found this little "gem" from Mr Giles.

quote:
Gentleman (said Mr G) appeal to our humanity. The appeal is out of place. That is not the question; but whether, organised as we are, under the Constitution, we have a right to make such a grant.
He then goes on to argue that it was more a matter for the Provincial Assemblies and so the whole decision gets remitted to a "Committee of the Whole".

So the argument was over who could be generous in this case, rather than the rights and wrongs of that generosity. It seems to have been generally accepted that generosity was in order. Indeed, Madison was clearly disposed to be generous.

The other thing to remember is the political context involved. For the first half of the nineteenth century the question of Haiti was probably one of the most divisive foreign policy issues in American politics. The Haitians had rebelled and kicked out their (French) colonial overlords, which was something most Americans of the time regarded with general approval. What made it controversial was that it was a slave revolt, and the idea that slaves had a legitimate right to rise up and overthrow their enslavers was terrifying to certain sections of the antebellum United States. So while the arguments are facially interesting, this subtext must be remembered.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The GDP per capita of Britain is somewhere between $35,000 and $40,000 per year. Before about 1750AD, the world GDP per capita was around $500 per head and fairly static.
Yes, but prices have gone up by a comparable amount as well. The modern $35,000 cannot buy 70 times as much as the 18th Century $500 could buy.

The true measure of increasing wealth is how much the money in one's pocket (or bank account) can actually buy, not the absolute numeric value on the notes (or statement).

The $500 takes account of inflation - explicitely so. (I believe the figures I cross-checked said around $430 in 1990 dollars, so I rounded up a bit for inflation). I have around a dozen shirts, several pairs of trousers, and a couple of suits in my wardrobe - and the colours won't run on any of them. That would have been immense riches before the Industrial Revolution.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The same exit polls found that 66% Hispanics said abortion should be legal with only 28% saying it should be illegal.

But that's a stupid question and doesn't reflect the many areas of concern within this issue. To ask someone whether abortion 'should be illegal or not, yes or no' doesn't ask whether there are circumstances where it should be allowed, or whether there are any circumstances where it definately should be illegal.

Many pro-life people would say that rape and death-causing medical problems are indeed justifiable reasons for termination.

You cannot ask a yes/no question when there are shades of opinion, and then use the result as a definitive figure on who agrees with abortion.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The $500 takes account of inflation - explicitely so. (I believe the figures I cross-checked said around $430 in 1990 dollars, so I rounded up a bit for inflation). I have around a dozen shirts, several pairs of trousers, and a couple of suits in my wardrobe - and the colours won't run on any of them. That would have been immense riches before the Industrial Revolution.

One of the best examinations of this question I've come across was Brad DeLong trying to answer the question "How Rich Is Fitzwilliam Darcy?"

quote:
The mother of the bride-to-be says:

quote:
Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice, Chapter XVII of Volume III (Chap. 59): Good gracious! Lord bless me! only think! dear me! Mr. Darcy! Who would have thought it! And is it really true? Oh! my sweetest Lizzy! how rich and how great you will be! What pin-money, what jewels, what carriages you will have! Jane's is nothing to it -- nothing at all. I am so pleased -- so happy. Such a charming man! -- so handsome! so tall! -- Oh, my dear Lizzy! pray apologise for my having disliked him so much before. I hope he will overlook it. Dear, dear Lizzy. A house in town! Every thing that is charming! Three daughters married! Ten thousand a year! Oh, Lord! What will become of me. I shall go distracted.... My dearest child.... I can think of nothing else! Ten thousand a year, and very likely more! 'Tis as good as a Lord! And a special licence. You must and shall be married by a special licence. But my dearest love, tell me what dish Mr. Darcy is particularly fond of, that I may have it tomorrow...
So how rich is Fitzwilliam Darcy, anyway? What does ten thousand (pounds) a year in the aftermath of the Napoleonic War mean, really?

I have two answers, the first of which is $300,000 a year, and the second of which is $6,000,000 a year.

Consider it first in relative income terms. Output per capita--annual GDP in America today divided by the number of people in America--is valued at some $36,000. Our crude estimates tell us that output per capita in Britain just after the Napoleonic Wars was valued at some 60 pound sterling a year.

Thus in relative income terms--relative to the average of disposable incomes in his society--Fitzwilliam Darcy's 10,000 pounds a year of disposable income gave him about the same multiple of average income in his society as an annual disposable income of $6,000,000 a year would give someone in our society.

On the other hand, my guess is that someone today with a disposable income of $300,000 a year can spend it to get the same utility as Fitzwilliam Darcy could by spending his disposable income of 10,000 pounds a year. This is a guess--a guess that our material standard of living today is some twenty times that of Mr. Darcy's England.

Nevertheless, it is an informed guess. By our standards, early nineteenth century Britain was desperately poor. There are lots of things we take for granted--and that are for us trivially cheap--that Fitzwilliam Darcy could not get at any price. Consider that Nathan Meyer Rothschild, richest (non-royal) man in the world in the first half of the nineteenth century, died in his fifties of an infected abscess that the medicine of the day had no way to treat.

So two answers, depending on what you're looking for. Fitzwilliam Darcy is worth about $300,000 per year in terms of relative purchasing power (what can he buy with his income), or he's worth $6,000,000 per year in terms of social standing (how does he stack up in relative terms to his contemporary countrymen).

There's a video version, which included Brad DeLong reading Pride and Prejudice in a ridiculous falsetto for those who are amused by such things.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Barnabas: your post of a week ago [Overused]

We have GOT to reconcile. There is NOTHING else for us to do. And working together, left and right, dissolves those distinctions.

Pro-life/choice, anti/homophobic, anti/racist.

Israel and the Palestinians (what a great name for a group!)

(I'd have a lot more time for anti-tax arguments if that included slashing 'defense' (how Orwellian) expenditure.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I have two answers, the first of which is $300,000 a year, and the second of which is $6,000,000 a year.
.....
By our standards, early nineteenth century Britain was desperately poor. There are lots of things we take for granted--and that are for us trivially cheap--that Fitzwilliam Darcy could not get at any price. Consider that Nathan Meyer Rothschild, richest (non-royal) man in the world in the first half of the nineteenth century, died in his fifties of an infected abscess that the medicine of the day had no way to treat. ...

This really is an impossible question, but the higher figure is the more realistic.

1. I do not believe anyone could now fund the building or maintenance of Pemberley - always supposed to have been inspired by Chatsworth which some shipmates will know well - on an annual income of the stirling equivalent of $300,000 p.a.

2. Running a house that size in 1810 required a huge indoor and outdoor staff. Remember, U.S. shipmates, that although servant wages were grindingly low in 1810, the English upper classes had no slaves.

3. Domestic wages now are much higher. The number of staff at a place like Chatsworth now is much lower. They are assisted by lots of modern gadgets, but a large part of their time is devoted to keeping the place suitable to be open to the public. So it is difficult to make a direct comparison. Nevertheless, even if Pemberley were not open to the public, and the current Mrs Darcy did more dirty-hands management than her husband's great-several-times-grandmother would have done, the modern domestic wage bill could well mop up the whole of the equivalent of $300,000.

4. Crœsos's second point is crucial, and it isn't just health. However rich you were, in 1810, there was no sanitation as we know it, no electric light, no heating apart from fires in grates, no television, no films and nothing to do in the evening except interminable games of cards. The only music available outside London or Bath was whatever someone in the family could play on an instrument that was probably out of tune. Far from Derby or Sheffield's being less than an hour away, the Darcy family would have maintained a house in Derby to stay overnight if they needed any shopping or county society. In stead of being 2½ hours by train from Chesterfield or down the M1, a journey to London was a major undertaking, which took several days. It may look very romantic in a film travelling in a chaise. The real thing was slow, tedious, cold, and with little shelter if it rained. Springing was poor. Roads were worse. Travel sickness is not a modern invention. Inns were infested with fleas and thieves. Ladies could only travel if they had someone to escort them. By modern standards, travel was also very, very expensive.

£10,000 p.a. was a huge amount of money in 1810. Keeping up the standard of living that was expected to accompany that, was also hugely expensive.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Fred Clark argues in Why the white evangelical religious right can no longer presume to claim moral superiority that the Religious Right is now seen in effect as the clothes-less Emperor.

quote:
For decades, the religious right has been pre-occupied with two issues above all else: abortion and homosexuality. And on both of those issues, they have wielded power and influence by claiming the moral high ground — claiming to represent the godly, “biblical” truth of right and wrong. Anyone who disagreed with them on these issues was portrayed as less moral, less godly, less good.
and
quote:
But not any more. That claim is still being asserted, but it is no longer being accepted.

Part of what happened on Tuesday was that millions of people rejected that claim on moral grounds. This was not just a political or pragmatic disagreement that preserved their essential claim of godly morality. It was a powerful counter-claim — the claim that the religious right is advocating immoral, unjust and cruelly unfair policies on both of its hallmark issues. Knee-jerk opposition to legal abortion and to gay rights weren’t just rejected as bad policy, but as bad morals — as being on the wrong side of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, biblical vs. unbiblical, moral vs. immoral.

Simply asserting that something is bad or wrong ornot allowed is no longer accepted. Now that we have better communication, anyone can see, if he/she wishes to, that there are other moral positions stated in those writings that are taken as Authority.

In the Bible, for instance, there are thousands of statements about the obligation to help the poor, the orphan, the widow, the stranger, compared to a mere six that mention homosexuality at all - and those six are arguable, not absolute, unlike the above thousands.

Outside observers see too many Christian groups espousing hatred of gays while refusing to help (or just mildly helping) those they are ORDERED to help by God and Jesus.

What is the cost to the church overall of this problem? After all, it infects the hierarchy of the Anglican Communion as much as it infects the fundagelicals.

Cripes, even our local Baptist den has begun to see that it isn't all about your personal revelation. At some point, it has to be about what you actually DO.

And if what you do is seen as a negative, then what you say isn't worth much.

I've been thinking more about this. And I believe that one of the premises is fundamentally flawed; I do not believe that the Church has had the moral high ground in my lifetime.

To unpack, there is a simple test for whether a group holds the moral high ground. Do people who are not a member of that group think better of someone because they are? And I don't think that Christianity as a whole has held this distinction in a long time at least in Britain. This isn't to say that no branch of Christianity does - I know hardline atheists and pagans who are glad that the Quakers exist.

That said, even in the last couple of decades the moral weight Christianity lends people has changed significantly. It has shifted from high in the late 1970s (when Mother Theresa won the Nobel Peace Prize) to a mix of "Really? You're choosing that hill to die on" (homophobia, abortion, contraception) and "What moral authority on poverty if you are that lavish?" (The Vatican, Patriarch Kiril, Rick Warren, I could go on...) and even Mother Theresa is a very tarnished angel these days. And that's without getting into paedophile scandals.

Never mind holding the moral high ground, Christianity is lost in the moral morass.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But (seen from an outsider's POV), the Moral Majority movement in the States claimed a superior position over a generation ago, and persuaded enough people that this was so that they were able to get the Republican Party in line with their needs/views (let alone Fox News*, etc.).

The political campaigns were run on that basis of moral superiority.

The change is that, quite suddenly, a majority of people didn't believe them any longer. The damage done to their credibility by the lying and shape-shifting of the GOP candidates contributed to this loss of belief, but the greater damage was done by the shrillness of their campaign against gays, women and "other races".

Voters have begun to realise that GLBTs are actually people THAT THEY KNOW (and often like), that women are actual people (which women knew all along) and that "other races" are the kind of people that your kids might marry.

All of which subtracts from the "brand" of supposedly-Christian, but otherwise immoral people.

* Karl Rove by himself probably did as much as anyone to reveal the dangers/idiocy of the punditocracy of Fox.

[ETA Duplicate post removed - DT, Purgatory Host]

[ 17. November 2012, 22:16: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Croesos

Thanks. Very helpful as always. And a further illustration of the dangers of plucking texts (whether constitutional or biblical) out of thin air.

I enjoy your thorough contributions.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

On the wealth issue, the Bennett family income was 2000 pounds/year. However both they and Darcy would have produced a lot of stuff (home farms for almost all their food) that they consumed which would not have counted as income and makes it difficult to compare their wealth to that of merchants or industrialists who did not have land.

On the current moral exemplars who are Christian, I think Desmond Tutu is still widely respected.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A simple point. Being a sore loser (rather than gracious in defeat) always leads to some loss of the moral high ground.

There were some early posts suggesting the margin for victory in the latest US election was "very small". As the final count (absentee ballots etc) approaches completion, I see (Wikipedia) that the winning margin is now 3%. That's not very small.

It hasn't stopped a significant number signing petitions to secede. I'm sure many of them think they occupy the high ground and see themselves as defending the American Way Of Life.

But they just look like sore losers; increasingly so. Another form of self-undermining.

[ 18. November 2012, 08:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Justinian, superb, your parentheses say it all.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

So, now, the Chritian Right is proclaiming that Obama, and apparently all blacks, are not Christian

quote:
Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?

Apparently, being a member of a "mainstream" church or an African Baptist church is no longer being a Christian.

Voting for some sort of values that aren't exactly those promulgated by the Guardians of Authority of Scripture (self-appointed) make sone NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Is there ANY basis to this claim, other than pure racism?

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Horseman Bree asks:

quote:
Is there ANY basis to this claim, other than pure racism?

Based on what I've learned from many discussions with my fellow citizens -- discussions in which I sometimes allow the other person to think I am neutral on political matters -- race-based thinking and racial bias play a bigger role in current U.S. politics than Europeans might imagine. Certainly, it's more in the open since we elected our first black President.

On the other hand, don't underestimate the across-the-board fanaticism of those on the far right. The religious right is only part of the story, although probably the most militant. The entire group expresses great pride in their commitment to what they imagine to be the the "moral high ground."

Here's an example of the Far Right thinking, circa November 18, 2012. It comes, not from some backwoods journal, but from the Letters column to the NY Times, of all places. (The writer comes from Paso Robles, California.)

quote:
Some people are saying we “conservatives” should move to the left if we want to win elections. That is not an option! I would rather see the G.O.P. lose every election than become “light Democrats.”

Some of us feel that we will have to answer to a “higher power,” so we will not embrace abortion, amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialized medicine and cuts to our military to pay for entitlements. The liberal media have done a great job making half of our citizens believe that America is the problem.

So many of the demonizing trigger words are in that letter. "Abortion." "Amnesty." "Socialism." "Entitlements." "Liberal media."

You don't need racism to explain the American Far Right, including the Religious Right. But an indirectly stated racism racism does seem to be one of the glues that holds things together.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Why does a commitment to militarism spring from conservatism?...especially when the libertarian streak that runs through conservatism implies NOT trying to force people to do stuff?

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
Why does a commitment to militarism spring from conservatism?...especially when the libertarian streak that runs through conservatism implies NOT trying to force people to do stuff?

The term "conservative," like the term "liberal," mean very different things in the U.S. from what is usual elsewhere.

Mainstream "conservatism" in the U.S. tends to be suspicious of government, and resistant to taxation, EXCEPT in the case of spending on the military (and law enforcement). "God and country" conservatives are not all that different in the U.S. and the U.K., on that particular issue at least.

Libertarians differ from most Republican conservatives in a number of ways. In the post-election analyses, you frequently heard "I'm a social libertarian but an economic conservative." Ron Paul, the candidate of choice of Libertarians, has not been a supporter of the U.S.'s ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Probably because of this, he was, According to the NY Times, the preferred 2012 presidential candidate of active servicemen and women, as measured by campaign contributions. Paul did not endorse Romney, by the way.

[ 18. November 2012, 20:48: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally quoted by roybart:

"Some people are saying we “conservatives” should move to the left if we want to win elections. That is not an option! I would rather see the G.O.P. lose every election than become “light Democrats.”

Some of us feel that we will have to answer to a “higher power,” so we will not embrace abortion, amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialized medicine and cuts to our military to pay for entitlements. The liberal media have done a great job making half of our citizens believe that America is the problem."

I know I'm a foreigner and can't be expected to understand these things, but I assume 'higher power' is code for God. I can see that a person might have to answer to God for having an abortion or making their living from providing them.

However, for the life of me, I cannot see why God should be angry with and judging those who:-

- give an amnesty for illegal immigrants (sojourners and strangers in the land),
- provide socialized (sic) medicine (if there be any sick among you, is it better to care for them or not to?) or
- want to reduce military expenditure to spend the money saved on providing for the poor (beating swords into ploughshares).

There may be policy arguments for or against these, but why is advocating or implementing any of them sinful? Why should a person have to answer to God for failing to oppose them? Perhaps I am so blinded and sunk in sin by the iniquity of having received the benefits of our National Health Service for most of my life, but I cannot see that.

The one cheering thought, is that from our experience here, the more determined a party is to be true to its doctrinaire principles, the less prospect it has of winning elections. Long may that continue.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

I can't understand this point of view either, Enoch. The only odd thing was to find it expressed so in such a bald and straightforward manner in a publication like the NY Times.

Like you, I took "higher power" as a kind of code for God. Or for Ayn Rand. Or for both, as in the case of Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.

[ 18. November 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Further to Enoch's well made points.

I'm afraid that letter to the NY Times shows just how much the Luke 4 "gospel of the kingdom" has been swamped by the politicised and privatised agenda of the Right.

And of course it also shows the hold of these ideas on a particular mind. I was reminded of a text from the OT book of Amos.

quote:
You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god which you made for yourselves. Therefore I will send you into exile

Or maybe Paul Simon's "Sound of Silence"?

"And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made."

I don't doubt the sincerity, but to these eyes across the sea there does seem to be a lot of idolatry mixed in there. And it seems to have dug deep into the fabric of the visible church in the US. That's pretty scary.

Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :

As an American on the left, I often read references to entitlements, particularly when coupled with anti-immigrant rhetoric, as blatant racism. Anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants is about not accepting hispanics as Americans, and I jump from that to the entitlement digs (in context of many conversations I've had with social conservatives) being about not giving anything to those damned minorities.

I don't think anyone speaking that way would ever admit, even to themselves, that this is their thinking, but you ask them who gets entitlements and they start describing a black woman in a city having children for the benefits. I know the discussion is much more nuanced than this, but other entitlements don't bother them one bit. I love some of these speakers, but they're bigoted assholes, all.

So as far as I'm concerned I can love the sinner, but hate the sin, to borrow from more of their cannon- and that means that their opinions count for nil, and bigotry on that scale has no moral high ground- they're trying to swim out of the swamp.

[ETA- tie back to OP]

[ 19. November 2012, 01:22: Message edited by: AmyBo ]

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

I am with you on just about everything you say, AmyBo.

The OP refers to "The Loss of the Moral High Ground" by the Religious Right. There is another side to this. I have been impressed by the number of people who are reclaiming and speaking up about their own version of the moral high ground. This includes people who consider themselves conservative about many things, but who resent the way the conservative label has been hijacked and radically redefined by the Religious Right. It includes those of us who try to live in accordance with a Gospel quite different in tone and emphasis from what we hear from the Religious Right.

Here are three snippets of this resurgent and very different "morality," from the NY Times Letters page today:

quote:
I am a white upper-middle-class married mother of three and a mainline Protestant. In other words, I was Mitt Romney's targeted demographic. Instead, I voted for Barack Obama ... My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare. As an educated person, I find myself alienated by the anti-woman and anti-science sentiments espoused by the GOP. It's "take back American from the undesirables" message nakedly exploits and encourages peoples prejudices against undocumented immigrants, gays, single mothers, and minorities.

quote:
The tide has turned. ... In this process there has been no infringement of the rights of churchgoers to practice their own theology but confirms that they may not impose their dogma on others.

quote:
The religious right construes its rejection at the polls as a sign of America's rejection of moral values and of our
national decline. The opposite is true.

We have rejected moralism, not morality. We have rejected the premise that sanctimonious preachers can herd our votes by claiming to be on God's chat list. We are evolving to a higher morality of knowledge, compassion, and stewardship.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well, I suppose the evolving might eventually arrive somewhere like this.

quote:
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Nah! Far too radical. "Not practical at all. Panders to the feckless. They deserve their poverty .." [Biased]

But (with my tongue firmly out of my cheek), those quotes in roybart's post do give us a pretty good idea of how "their own theology" is perceived by folks outside its reach.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've no doubt James Madison would disagree with you. In 1794 he stood on the floor of the house and said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

I can find in NT scripture where I am to expend the money of Mere Nick. I can't find where I'm to advocate the coercive use of power to expend the money of Justinian.
Let's play a game. The game is called "How much is it fair that Justinian pay to upkeep the society he lives in?"

Justinian is a Brit. The GDP per capita of Britain is somewhere between $35,000 and $40,000 per year. Before about 1750AD, the world GDP per capita was around $500 per head and fairly static. I am responsible for almost exactly none of this difference - I am merely lucky enough to live in 21st Century Britain. That difference has nothing to do with my ability or hard work, and everything to do with the society I'm lucky enough to live in, and government and taxes are how society exerts its will and maintains itself.

So a fair tax rate based on the proportion of my income that is luck based vs the proportion that is down to me would be around ($35,000-$500)/$35,000 or 98.6%

Now I'm not advocating a 98.6% tax rate. One of the reasons we do pretty well as a society is that we leave people with personal property so they have something to build on. But I am well aware that more than 95% of my income and wealth are down to the sheer dumb luck of me having been born in Britain in the late 20th Century. I hit the jackpot, and government is how we organise this ridiculous positive sum lottery I won. To not pay for others to be able to win the lottery would be ... ridiculously selfish.

Ok. I'll say that neither I or anyone else I've ever met appears to have had the sheer dumb luck to have been born with a mind more qualified than Justinian's to determine what Justinian does with his stuff.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
The tide has turned. ... In this process there has been no infringement of the rights of churchgoers to practice their own theology but confirms that they may not impose their dogma on others.

. . . But we will impose ours on them.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
The tide has turned. ... In this process there has been no infringement of the rights of churchgoers to practice their own theology but confirms that they may not impose their dogma on others.
. . . But we will impose ours on them.

Really? What morality are you being forced to follow now that you weren't before?

Note before you answer that other people being allowed to do something doesn't change what you can and can't do one tiny bit.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Really? What morality are you being forced to follow now that you weren't before?

part of it is espoused by the one who said

quote:
My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare.

It's the same religion-based pushiness that the person was complaining about earlier.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Really? What morality are you being forced to follow now that you weren't before?

part of it is espoused by the one who said

quote:
My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare.
It's the same religion-based pushiness that the person was complaining about earlier.

So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.

There is a big difference between requiring that people have access to basic necessities and that people not be allowed access to them. If the person given the access objects to having these needs met, [s]he can refuse the offer. But there is no comparable free choice when you withhold such necessities. There is no moral symmetry here at all.

--Tom Clune

[ 20. November 2012, 18:24: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.

And is as accurate a description as saying that your creed requires abortion and buggery.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.
And is as accurate a description as saying that your creed requires abortion and buggery.

Perhaps you'll eventually get around to reading the rest of my post, which explains why this is complete nonsense.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.
And is as accurate a description as saying that your creed requires abortion and buggery.
Perhaps you'll eventually get around to reading the rest of my post, which explains why this is complete nonsense.

--Tom Clune

The complete nonsense is your posting what you did. You and your political opponents are doing the exact same thing by putting on Jesus t-shirts and trying to grab the reigns of power so you can force others into doing stuff because you fear you lack the ability to persuade.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Boys, boys, boys. You are two sides of the same foundationalist coin.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Boys, boys, boys. You are two sides of the same foundationalist coin.

Well, I called the board of elections here in my county a while ago and asked them how to unregister.

I've begun reading some folks regarded as Christian anarchists and can't seem to come up with refutation. It appears we Christians are to persuade, not coerce, and it seems we cross that line when we step into the voting booth. Unless you can find me someone who says that happiness and joy eluded them until they discovered politics I'm off to pound sand.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's hard accepting the bottom line of Christ I know Mere Nick.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's hard accepting the bottom line of Christ I know Mere Nick.

I hope that's what I'm really doing, Martin.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Nick. For some reason the rich young man comes to mind. Don't go. We need each other. You and tclune need each other. Left and right need each other, to include each other.

All the privileges we have we got and get from the poor. We owe them EVERYTHING.

That humanists have to shame us in to giving by the coercion of legislation is a terrible indictment.

I have great hope for you in that you see that the suicide machine is insane in its military expenditure trying to forlornly hold what it has.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mere Nick:
quote:
My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare.
It's the same religion-based pushiness that the person was complaining about earlier.

I find this rule helpful: "It's no problem if your political convictions are inspired by your religion, but in the political arena you'll have to defend them using secular arguments."

For example, I believe in supporting the homeless, and this belief is to a large degree inspired by my religion. But I also have good secular arguments of why supporting the homeless is ultimately good for my country. I will defend my position with these secular arguments, and people can agree with them or not. If I manage to convince people using secular arguments, it's not 'religion-based pushiness'.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But, if you see all taxation as "the gummint stealing my dollars and giving them to someone else", then ANY suggestion of giving is seen as "pushiness"...

"And it is worse if the Christians agree, because we are supposed to be raised to prosperity by our Christianness, so those scroungers should be converted and become prosperous like us"

Except that that whole sentence bears no relation to any Christian or secular relaity that one can define.

Or have I missed something along the way? I'm OK with discussing how best to serve the poor/widowed/orphan/stranger, but the discussion shouldn't be done throwing most Christian/Biblical teaching out the window, preaching the exact opposite, and then claiming to be Christian anyway.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

It seems to me that all (or perhaps almost all) government spending is redistributive. My tax dollars aren't handed back to me, dollar for dollar. They go to soldiers, teachers, police, and a long list of other people including the poor, who are well down the list.

I'm not happy with the way some of my tax dollars are spent, but I think it's silly to argue that I don't like my tax dollars being given to someone else. That's necessarily going to happen in order to have a functioning government that provides for the general welfare of its citizens.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0