homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The Loss of the Moral High Ground (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Loss of the Moral High Ground
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A similar point made in the New York Times.

--------------------
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
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"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.

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ...

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It looks to me like the Church has conceded the moral high ground to the Occupy movement.

--------------------
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
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I honestly think that many of these people are not equipped to live in a free country.

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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™.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
".... 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 ]

Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390

 - Posted      Profile for ldjjd         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.)

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.)

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@ 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.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools