Would Jesus Be a Democrat or a Republican?

[Hitch]

I ask myself, would a liar politician say he was for letting babies live and by default label his opposition as baby killers just to get votes from gullible voters? The answer is yes.

And the babies are just as dead, and you're support one of the organizations dedicated to that destruction.

Have a nice birthday

 

[reba]

5 - Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

7 - Any personal problems with another member, then deal with it through private messages.

8 - No harassing members via PM. No public posting of PMs.

Publicly announcing who is on a member's Ignore list is prohibited.

 

[jasoncran]

Many posters seem to think that God does not want us to give “under force†and use this line of reasoning to oppose taxation to support activities that might be reasonably understood to be “charityâ€. I will now argue that fundamentally taxation is not stealing or “forced†giving, but really a practical way to implement the population’s free will based determination to engage in communal activities, including those of a charitable nature.
<O:p</O:p
Suppose that many people in a particular society have empathy for the plight of the poor and wish to be involved in ensuring that these poor get money. What would they do? Would they all get together every day and listen to the petitions of individual poor people and then “pass a hatâ€. Of course not, that is wildly impractical. Nor do people want or need to be burdened with the time-consuming task of identifying poor people and then giving them money directly. Again, wildly impractical. Besides, there may be many poor people that nobody knows about.

What they would instead do is to choose (read “electâ€) some people who share their concern to do the job matching dollars with poor people for them. At this point, I probably should not need to complete the argument, but I will. To delegate this task to a set of people with the time, skill, knowledge, to determine “who should get what†is the efficient, intelligent thing to do. And it might be perfectly appropriate to pay these people to do this “wealth re-distribution†service. Let’s call this chosen set of people the “administratorsâ€.
<O:p</O:p
So all the members of this society freely make a commitment to each pay, say 10%, of their income to this project. And since, of course, it is the administrators who have the job of vectoring this money to where it is most needed, the members of the society give their money to the administrators. In order to make their commitment binding, the members of the society freely consent to being “forced†to pay their share. Let me explain this key point a bit more. The members of the society are making a kind of contractual agreement with the administrators – they are saying “we want you to do the hard work of figuring out who needs what, so to help you out, we each commit to paying our 10 % shareâ€. And in so doing, they recognize and accept that, in order to plan disbursements appropriately the administrators need certainty that people will follow through on their commitment.
<O:p</O:p
So everybody agrees to be legally bound to follow through on their commitment.
<O:p</O:p
Of course, this is precisely what happens when a government “forces†you to pay taxes to support charity. All the simple-minded rhetoric you see in this thread misses the key point – when people in a society decide to collectively help the poor, “taxation†is an efficient, practical way to implement the collective will of the people.
<O:p</O:p
And if the collective will of the people is to help the poor, then this is decidedly a <ST1:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:PlaceType>kingdom of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">God </st1:PlaceName></ST1:paction.<O:p</O:p

i will bite and i have tried not be rude. the problem here is that the church should do that alone,if we give only to govt, again whats left for the church? no need to have it. it would serve no purpose as by taxation i would never have to meet or deal with any pauper. let alone care, the caring is done for me.i could give angrily and yet still be helping and how is that pleasing to god.?

 

[Pard]

Just so no one forgets me...

What Drew seems to not understand is that "charity" is, by definition, an act of one's freewill. So long as there is a punishment for not paying taxes, there will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be a real argument for taxes being any form of charity at all.

Besides that, government entitlement programs are a money sink. In fact, considering entitlement programs as "charity" begs the question of whether or not you actually care for the poor. You money will help the poor far better if you give it to a private institution.

And this idea that the church cannot be the means to charity is pure garbage. If someone who isn't Christian wants to give money to charity (and as I said, chances are it's a guilt-driven form of charity, which isn't even charity...) there are thousands of organizations that will take your money and give it to the poor far more efficiently and effectively than any government.

 

[theLords]

Just so no one forgets me...

What Drew seems to not understand is that "charity" is, by definition, an act of one's freewill. So long as there is a punishment for not paying taxes, there will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be a real argument for taxes being any form of charity at all.

Besides that, government entitlement programs are a money sink. In fact, considering entitlement programs as "charity" begs the question of whether or not you actually care for the poor. You money will help the poor far better if you give it to a private institution.

And this idea that the church cannot be the means to charity is pure garbage. If someone who isn't Christian wants to give money to charity (and as I said, chances are it's a guilt-driven form of charity, which isn't even charity...) there are thousands of organizations that will take your money and give it to the poor far more efficiently and effectively than any government.

Tell me about it! The government needs accountability! I was watching a reality show on MTV recently, and one of the girls who was enrolled in college and receiving financial aid was trying to use her check fraudulently! So many people do this all the time. As someone in college getting financial aid it makes me angry. Those who get financial aid use it fraudulently and take it from someone else who needs it.

 

[Pebbles]

You seem to be getting hung up on the semantics of what charity means rather than seeing what the effects of those actions have for those receiving them isn't that the point otherwise your only doing it for selfish reasons. Social programs funded by taxes prevent the poor from falling through the bottom of society

The fact that you decry you taxes as too high implies that you have no desire to give as much as you would otherwise do through charity if taxes were abolished while arguing about rate of tax is something different arguing against tax and the social programs it provides is an argument against helping the impoverished.

Your arguments about private vs public are largely irrelivent as a sizable amount of social programs are already operated by charities whom receive funds from government and who's continued operation is dependent on those funds.

What I find amusingly telling is that a sizable number of you feel that Jesus would instantly agree with whatever political position you prescribe to.
Kinda lends to the idea that a fair few of you think yourself as knowing as good or better than your own god.

 

[Hitch]

You seem to be getting hung up on the semantics of what charity means rather than seeing what the effects of those actions have for those receiving them isn't that the point otherwise your only doing it for selfish reasons. Social programs funded by taxes prevent the poor from falling through the bottom of society

The fact that you decry you taxes as too high implies that you have no desire to give as much as you would otherwise do through charity if taxes were abolished while arguing about rate of tax is something different arguing against tax and the social programs it provides is an argument against helping the impoverished.

No one has argued for abolishing tax, so your rant is meaningless

Your arguments about private vs public are largely irrelivent as a sizable amount of social programs are already operated by charities whom receive funds from government and who's continued operation is dependent on those funds.

LOL Every dollar EVERY organization receives comes from private accounts resulting from production. That includes your beloved Feds.

What I find amusingly telling is that a sizable number of you feel that Jesus would instantly agree with whatever political position you prescribe to.
Kinda lends to the idea that a fair few of you think yourself as knowing as good or better than your own god.

Actually what it shows is that effort has been made to submit to the authority of scripture, rather than the current conventional wisdom.

 

[Pizzaguy]

WOW! Pebbles!

I have GOT to run, wish I'd not even come to the forum now - can't help but want to answer your posts - but I won't do it in a hurry. I'll be back tomorrow evening.

(There is one statement you made that, well, I can't say I disagree with. Not at all.)

**Bookmarking your post**

 

[jasoncran]

pebbles is a brittish subject. peebles try paying taxes on YOUR GOVT ENTILEMENT PROGRAM THAT YOU ARE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YUP. if you or your spouse is disabled and the other makes enough you will owe money to the IRS. I know this personally as i had to pay them in the past so now my wife has them taken out of her disability tax. and i dont even make over 40k year after allowed deductions. 50k without them. so any tax rate raises this so called "rich man or what ever"will pay more.

no thanks.

 

[Drew]

i will bite and i have tried not be rude. the problem here is that the church should do that alone,if we give only to govt, again whats left for the church? no need to have it. it would serve no purpose as by taxation i would never have to meet or deal with any pauper. let alone care, the caring is done for me.i could give angrily and yet still be helping and how is that pleasing to god.?

Well, if you are "angry" about being taxed, that does not mean that you, as a responsible member of society, should not pay your taxes. We all have to make personal sacrifices in the interest of the larger well-being of the society.

Besides, you seem to think this is an "either / or" scenario. If you have money left after taxation, by all means give it to the church if you can and feel led to do so.

The real problem is this: a society chooses to be taxed. This is obviously true - a child could understand this.

 

[Hitch]

Well, if you are "angry" about being taxed, that does not mean that you, as a responsible member of society, should not pay your taxes. We all have to make personal sacrifices in the interest of the larger well-being of the society.

Besides, you seem to think this is an "either / or" scenario. If you have money left after taxation, by all means give it to the church if you can and feel led to do so.

The real problem is this: a society chooses to be taxed. This is obviously true - a child could understand this.

And any two year old could understand that no one has said otherwise , and your pretense displays your dishonesty. But then if pretense and dishonesty were removed liberalism would have nothing at all.

 

[Drew]

Tell me about it! The government needs accountability! I was watching a reality show on MTV recently, and one of the girls who was enrolled in college and receiving financial aid was trying to use her check fraudulently! So many people do this all the time. As someone in college getting financial aid it makes me angry. Those who get financial aid use it fraudulently and take it from someone else who needs it.

Drew understands this perfectly. What Pard does not understand, or will not admit, is that members of a society freely choose to be taxed. The fact that they are then held legally accountable for such a commitment is a secondary matter, grounded in pragmatics

You can all pretend that you are forced to pay taxes, if you like, but, in a democracy, this is simply not so, at least in the important, relevant sense.

If the government does not handle the money responsibly, vote them out! Or, perhaps better yet, prosecute them criminally.

 

[Hitch]

Drew understands this perfectly. What Pard does not understand, or will not admit, is that members of a society freely choose to be taxed. The fact that they are then held legally accountable for such a commitment is a secondary matter, grounded in pragmatics

You can all pretend that you are forced to pay taxes, if you like, but, in a democracy, this is simply not so, at least in the important, relevant sense.

Yawn , a half truth is a complete lie.

 

[theLords]

You can all pretend that you are forced to pay taxes, if you like, but, in a democracy, this is simply not so, at least in the important, relevant sense.

Not paying taxes means jail time.

If the government does not handle the money responsibly, vote them out! Or, perhaps better yet, prosecute them criminally.

You make it sound as if it's that easy, but it's not. There are 200+ million people in the US that can vote. But America's motto has always been "Might Makes Right" so....

 

[Drew]

Not paying taxes means jail time.

Agree, but that is not the central point. You freely vote to be taxed (please do not pretend this is not so - it is a clear, obvious, simple fact). No one forced you to vote to be taxed. You are free to elect a government that does not tax you at all.

Commitments, even ones made freely like the freewill decision to vote to be taxes, have consequences. In the case of taxation, you agree , and freely so, to be legally bound to pay your taxes. Again, you are perfectly free to vote in a government that asks you to pays, but then does not force you to do so.

Try that and see how it works out.

 

[jasoncran]

Drew understands this perfectly. What Pard does not understand, or will not admit, is that members of a society freely choose to be taxed. The fact that they are then held legally accountable for such a commitment is a secondary matter, grounded in pragmatics

You can all pretend that you are forced to pay taxes, if you like, but, in a democracy, this is simply not so, at least in the important, relevant sense.

If the government does not handle the money responsibly, vote them out! Or, perhaps better yet, prosecute them criminally.

ok let me state it this way, do you have time read all the bills that your lawmakers pass,and be a in the word , when the bills are 2200 pages long.

yes, and as others have stated nobody is here stating that we shouldnt pay taxes,just that charity ie giving to the poor should be the churches job.
yes, realistically, the sad of the western countries churches that wont change the poor state the govt having to do it all, but why not actually meet the person you help or would you say?

drive by while a car wreck just occured and not assist(illegal not render assistance in florida)while on the way to church and think well i'm helping my taxes are paying for them to be rescued? while its true that that is what emt/cops are for but YOU, can help.

next. since i live in bad neighborhood i percieve(note)many are on the tanf program here and its possible(cant verify) the drug dealers i see on routine basis as i go to church are on welfare and making money illegally. so the church shouldnt get involved, and have programs that arent funded by the govt as the govt cant fund a christian outreach or any religious outreach at all. violates the first amendment if they do.

the crime rate is high where i live for the county. i cant for the live of me understand why you assume that we that arent for social programs dont care for the poor.

i find that insulting as i was poor and have been on tanf and my parents were on that when they raised me and my siblings. i have lived for briefs periods with no running water or electricity, in an trailer that was condemned. so i do know what being poor is. most of that was from my parents mismanagment of money.

no handout from The govt (save them paying for some meds, and that wasnt long(three months) got me where i am. God did and alot of sweat on my part.

 

[jasoncran]

so drew if i voted for obama, which i didnt and he gets reelected am i held responsible for his first action in office? the reversal of the mexico city policy? i would vote him out on that alone as i with my charity dont want my money going to deaths of the unborn.sorry if joe citizen wants to donate his own money so be it. its legal to abort but sorry not going to "donate' my money to that.

and lets be real here, if we take the "truth, bible believing christians' and compare to the others that vote. the later is greater in number.

the anti-war libs wanted obama to get us out of afghanistan and iraq(they voted on that, lol i know that wastn going to happen). yet that aint going to happen anytime soon.

 

[reba]

Some folks have a pie in the sky childish view of government. It is like reason with a 2 year old. A 2 year old thinks of the world with him/her as the center. ie: i say it so it so.. i want so i will have.. If we grow up we see life is not centered around us.

 

[jasoncran]

the irony here drew if work less and well was lazy and didnt really look hard for a replacement job that i have because its considered self-employment. i would have be collected partial unemployment(till scott changed the law) and also have free healthcare. is that fair to those that work like i do at present. rewarded for working less?

i'm not greedy at all, i take care of what i own, and also dont buy excessively and waste my money.so i get punished for being a productive citizen? and you, and i say reluctanlty, drew. are saying that i'm wining.Is this the case?! nope I making a point on "compassionate" the feds are on those that try to make more so that they can survive! i know a man as i stated before that is a productive citizen and is collecting social security and is working full time again, yup he must pay fica taxes and has to pay the irs each year.makes enough to owe. he doesnt even make over 100k a year to my knowledge.

 

[theLords]

Agree, but that is not the central point. You freely vote to be taxed (please do not pretend this is not so - it is a clear, obvious, simple fact). No one forced you to vote to be taxed. You are free to elect a government that does not tax you at all.

Commitments, even ones made freely like the freewill decision to vote to be taxes, have consequences. In the case of taxation, you agree , and freely so, to be legally bound to pay your taxes. Again, you are perfectly free to vote in a government that asks you to pays, but then does not force you to do so.

Try that and see how it works out.

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.