Would Jesus Be a Democrat or a Republican?

[Theofilus]

This isn't true. There is actually sufficient proof that taxing federal income is unconstitutional. If 49% vote not to be taxed and 51% vote to be taxed it does not mean that 100% voted to be taxed, all it means is might makes right.

You don't get to vote whether you pay tax or not. You only get to vote on how the taxes are spent.

The 16th amendment to the US constitution says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

Income tax isn't unconstitutional.

 

[theLords]

You don't get to vote whether you pay tax or not. You only get to vote on how the taxes are spent.

The 16th amendment to the US constitution says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.​

Income tax isn't unconstitutional.

I'm speaking in terms of the analogy that Drew is using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_(United_States)

 

[jasoncran]

I'm speaking in terms of the analogy that Drew is using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_(United_States)

lords, clarify that, i dont quite understand.i do see that drew is thinking we are refusing to pay taxes. which isnt the case.


and to drew,so its ok to be taxed and not demend accountability. i cant look at the local schoolboard budget much less the state one.

 

[Drew]

This isn't true. There is actually sufficient proof that taxing federal income is unconstitutional. If 49% vote not to be taxed and 51% vote to be taxed it does not mean that 100% voted to be taxed, all it means is might makes right.

In a democracy, it is unavoidable that some people are not going to get what they voted for - I felt this was so obvious, that I did not qualify my explanation accordingly.

Look - when you form a democracy, you agree to "go with the majority" whether you like it or not. Otherwise, chaos results. So what I really should have said was something like this: "Given a commitment to the principles of a 'majority-rules' democracy, the society as a whole freely decides to be taxed if 50 % plus one of the voters vote that way".

The principle remains unchanged - taxation is something a democratic society freely embraces, and it is simply incorrect to suggest that taxation is "forced" on you.

 

[reba]

ain't nothing FREE about PAYING taxes

 

[Hitch]

In a democracy, it is unavoidable that some people are not going to get what they voted for - I felt this was so obvious, that I did not qualify my explanation accordingly.

Look - when you form a democracy, you agree to "go with the majority" whether you like it or not. Otherwise, chaos results. So what I really should have said was something like this: "Given a commitment to the principles of a 'majority-rules' democracy, the society as a whole freely decides to be taxed if 50 % plus one of the voters vote that way".

The principle remains unchanged - taxation is something a democratic society freely embraces, and it is simply incorrect to suggest that taxation is "forced" on you.

And it is entirely dishonest on your part to imply that anyone here has posted anything that opposes taxation systematically.

But then honest liberals are a rare as horse feathers.

 

[Drew]

ain't nothing FREE about PAYING taxes

Perhaps this is a wry observation about taxation - fair enough.

But the people in the society most certainly freely vote to be taxed. In your country, and mine, nobody puts a gun to your head as you cast your vote.

You most certainly are free to decide, as a society, that you will pay no taxes.

 

[theLords]

In a democracy, it is unavoidable that some people are not going to get what they voted for - I felt this was so obvious, that I did not qualify my explanation accordingly.

Look - when you form a democracy, you agree to "go with the majority" whether you like it or not. Otherwise, chaos results. So what I really should have said was something like this: "Given a commitment to the principles of a 'majority-rules' democracy, the society as a whole freely decides to be taxed if 50 % plus one of the voters vote that way".

The principle remains unchanged - taxation is something a democratic society freely embraces, and it is simply incorrect to suggest that taxation is "forced" on you.

This is circular reasoning. I'm going to bow out

 

[reba]

I did not vote for income taxes

I did not vote for gas tax

I did not vote sales tax

I did not vote to tax my phone

I will not vote to tax the internet

I did not vote for fica


Drew your points may look right on paper but they are not real life.

 

[Drew]

This is circular reasoning. I'm going to bow out

It most certainly is not.

Circular reasoning involves assuming the very thing one is trying to establish by argument.

I am, of course, doing no such thing.

 

[Hitch]

LMBO

 

[Drew]

I did not vote for income taxes

I did not vote for gas tax

I did not vote sales tax

I did not vote to tax my phone

I will not vote to tax the internet

I did not vote for fica

I suspect that this is not really true, at least not in any kind of realistic sense. Assuming that you voted, you very likely voted for a government whose platform included many of these taxes. Obviously, a society cannot run by having the general population vote on each and every tax issue. So, in effect, you voted to be taxed.

Again, if the majority of people in your country / state vote for no taxes, guess what? You will get no taxes.

In a democracy, taxation is the will of the people, it is not "forced" on you. Yo can all keep denying this if you like, but the facts are what they are.

 

[Mike]

You don't get to vote whether you pay tax or not. You only get to vote on how the taxes are spent.

Theo, we have no say how taxes are spent on a federal level . This is voted upon by congress as part of the spending budget and signed by the President. We have an impact on some local and state tax proposals, but we have no say on what's done on the federal level. I'm not sure if this is what you were implying with this statement. If it is, it's not accurate. All we can do is vote for a candidate and hope they represent their constituents.

 

[reba]

Yup TheLords i agree

 

[ronniechoate34]

Would Jesus be a democrat or a republican?


Why do people waste their time on such drivel?


Jesus is the king of kings and the Lord of lords right now.


He doesn't approve of either party. And when He returns to dispense justice that's just what he's gonna do.

 

[reba]

Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

 

[Drew]

Yup TheLords i agree

I publically guarantee that none of you will be able to actually make a case that my argument is circular.

 

[Drew]

Jesus is the king of kings and the Lord of lords right now.

I agree completely. But I suggest a sizeable portion of people on this forum do not believe this - they think that Jesus has no interest in how a society is actually governed, and see Jesus as only Lord of "their inner spiritual lives".

 

[Drew]

Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

This is an interesting saying of Jesus. I have become convinced that Jesus is not suggesting a separation of church and state here - quite the opposite as I will argue presently. Perhaps some will see this teaching of Jesus as suggesting that what is "paid to Ceasar" (i.e. taxes) cannot be part of what is paid to God and would therefore see this text as suggesting that charity should not be implemented through taxation. If the following argument works, such an interpretation is probably mistaken (this argument is really attributable to British theologian NT Wright):

Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. 20And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.

Now this is a cryptic statement whose meaning is not obvious. For some reason, it has been taken to mean that the world is split into two spheres, one in which God rules and the other in which secular human governments rule. However, this is not what Jesus is trying to tell us. And if it was, then Paul would be contradicting Jesus when, in Romans 1, Paul announces the “gospel” of Jesus Christ.

Of what relevance is Romans 1? Well, in Paul’s world the term “gospel” was frequently used to denote the news that a new emperor has ascended to the throne in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:City>Rome. So when Paul uses this same term to refer to Jesus, his point could not be more clear – Jesus supplants Caesar as lord of this present world.

Back to the account of the coin. Just as it is important to know something about what the term “gospel” meant in that time and place, it is also important to know the echoes that Jesus might be eliciting when He makes his coin pronouncement.

The double command Jesus makes (give x to Ceasar and y to God) can be argued to draw on material found in 1 Maccabees 2.68. In that text, Mattathias is telling his sons, especially Judas, to get ready for revolution. ‘Pay back to the Gentiles what is due to them,’ he says, ‘and keep the law’s commands’. And clearly, “paying back” the Gentiles was not meant to refer to money. Instead, it is a subtle suggestion that the Gentiles are about to be overthrown. And I suggest that Jesus is making a cryptic allusion to this account to make a similar point.

So while Jesus is, on the surface, saying “pay the tax”, His more fundamental point is that Caesar’s regime is a blasphemous nonsense and that one day God would overthrow it.

Jesus’ teaching about the Roman coin, understood in it context, is not advocating a separation between the spheres of Caesar and God, with secular human governments ruling in one domain and God in the other. Given the overall context of Jesus’ life and ministry – entailing the revolutionary announcement that the Kingdom of God has already broken into history – and given the arguable allusion to 1 Maccabees, Jesus is probably saying, albeit cryptically, that God’s dominion extends to all spheres. One can almost see Jesus wryly smiling as he says “give Ceasar the things that are His” – suggesting that there really is nothing that falls into that category.

I do not think I am reaching when I suggest that when Jesus holds up the coin and inquires about the image and the inscription, He knows the Jews will be reminded of the graven image to Caesar that it contains. Any Jew familiar with the Torah should have rightly bristled at such blasphemy. And remember, the emperor in <st1:City w:st="on">Rome</st1:City> did indeed set himself up as a god. Jesus is being very shrewd here. The holding up of the coin and the question about its image constitutes a critique of the blasphemy that it expresses. And so Jesus’ clever answer is effectively this: “Pay the tax, but remember who is the real Lord, the one who says ‘You shall have no other gods before me’”.

Now that I have attempted to give an account of what this teaching is really all about. To be fair, those who think it advocates a church-state separation need to actually make a case for that position – they should not simply claim that meaning, as though it were self-evident. The teaching is indeed cryptic and the instruction to “give Ceasar what is His”, aside from the obvious superficial instruction to pay the tax, is highly open-ended as to what it is that we actually owe to Ceasar.<O</O

 

[Free]

This is circular reasoning. I'm going to bow out

I see no evidence of circular reasoning.