[Grovenet] Genesis 4:9

[Gary Duncan-Gates]

David - 

Thanks for the warm welcome.  One question (many components):

Why is it ok for liberals to mix religion and politics?  For example, if conservatives try to impose a moment of silence in school,
lefties protest that is an imposition of religion on our children by the state.

Yet, if liberals demand must raise taxes for socialized medicine (because we must take care of our brethren), that's cool.  

Gary "I like standards so much I have two of them" Duncan-Gates



----- Original Message ----
From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2008 11:21:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Genesis 4:9

Hi Gary,

Welcome to the non-lurking side of Grovenet.

Wealth was discussed at great length in this thread.  Wealth is an  
impediment to obtaining access to the kingdom of God.  That is  
immaterial if religion is kept out of the Economic and Political  
discussion.  But, this is America and we do take our religions  
seriously.  Religion has been part of the dialog about governing  
since the Spanish claimed Hispanola in the name of Christianity, and  
it continues to this day.

The monotheistic religions all have conventions for the care of  
widows and orphans.  They do not prohibit the inclusion of those  
tasks in the operation of government.  Jesus provided many parables  
and comments on money and the position it should pay in the lives of  
his followers.  It is possible to argue that a literal reading of the  
Gospels obligates those who want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven to  
dispose of all that they own. (Matt 10:17-24)  We certainly know that  
at the judgement, those who failed to provide for the "least of  
these" will not enter the kingdom (Matt 25:31-46)  Again, there is  
nothing in the lesson to prohibit using government agencies from  
meeting the needs of "the least" of the brothers.

Since we are a representative democracy there is little to prevent  
the majority of Americans from directing their representatives in  
government from ensuring that the "least of these" receive care and  
their minimum needs. ( Except where the Supreme Court gets involved )

I can accept that the separation of Church and State enshrined in our  
Constitution should limit imposing Christian morals upon the non- 
Christian members of our nation.  If you wish an agnostic reason for  
caring for the young and old in society,  you might review the growth  
of the Prussian state, in that case the reforms that established  
kindergarten, social security, and a general reliance upon the  
government strengthened and enlarged the power of that state.  When  
someone pushes "America first", they may consider how reliance upon  
the government accomplishes that goal.

Of course, it is possible to speak in strictly economic terms about  
taxes and government.  But, that ignores the non-economic issues.

Yes, it is a nasty world out there and it is very difficult to take  
care of ourselves.  There are alternative social organizations  
besides a competitive free for all, where it is everyone for  
themselves, and "the devil take the hind most".   For example, there  
is nothing that prevents like minded people from forming "more  
perfect unions" to make it easier or safer.  There is a school of  
thought that stresses individual action and personal responsibility,  
and I accept that it has a place in our society.  I also recall that  
"divide and conquer" is a very effective method of removing competition.

David


On Sep 7, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Gary Duncan-Gates wrote:

> Walt,
>
> Do you get paid by the word?  You are right about political  
> parties; they intentionally oversimplify the issues and in so  
> doing, obfuscate them.  It is a shame we all can't just talk to one  
> another as individuals without the labels.
>
> However, you also said,
>
> ...
> TAXES, by definition, come from your fellow citizens and the  
> economy that sustains us all.  To take more than is absolutely  
> necessary because you are too cavalier to get your own insurance is  
> offensive.  To suggest that there is no alternative in our society  
> than to live on the governmentally mandated largesse of others is,  
> to say the least, disingenuous.
>
> It is a nasty, demanding world out there.  We have enough to worry  
> about taking care of ourselves, without having to fund other  
> people's follies.
>
> Gary
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet