AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

It's understood that you think I'm either too dense to understand the topic, or, alternatively, that I'm maliciously lying.

I guess it rarely crosses your mind that people simply might not agree with the premise or the conclusions you take for granted. There are lots of ways to discuss the article of an author who resorts to the bible and looks for guidance on modern policy principles, and discussing other parts of Leviticus and how those might translate into modern policy is entirely appropriate. Just because someone doesn't agree with the premise you take for granted or draws a different conclusion from the one you and the author agree upon doesn't mean that he

- doesn't address the subject,
- doesn't make an attempt at civil discourse,
- makes straw man arguments,
- intentionally diverts from the topic,
- posts non sequiturs,
- is intellectually incapable of understanding the topic or
- is maliciously misrepresenting the thesis.

All of which happen to be accusations that you threw in my general direction while I was still talking about the subject.

I understand that it can be frustrating when you present your thesis and conclusion, and people just don't go down the road you deem appropriate for the discussion and concentrate on different aspects of what you've posted instead. Fine. That doesn't make all of those people liars or idiots.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Sigh. The topic was not Leviticus OE. I imagine there are a few people around who understand that.

I guess most people must have it wrong when the think the title has something to do with the topic of an essay.

Quote:

Obama Should Listen to Leviticus: Don't Confuse Justice and Charity

Medved quite clearly says the article is about Leviticus and Obama should listen to what Leviticus says.

Didn't you claim to be a teacher Fox? Don't you think the title of an essay should reflect the topic of the essay? Don't you agree that the title of the essay states Obama should listen to Leviticus? Why are you arguing OE isn't on topic when he talks about Leviticus? It's you that doesn't seem to understand Fox. Can you find me the rules in English writing structure that state a title should be completely ignored when it comes to the topic of an essay?

Here is an example of how titles SHOULD be chosen

Quote:

Your title should relate to your topic.

http://www.wikihow.com/Find-a-Catchy-Title-for-Your-Paper/Essay

Quote:

Essay title defines the course of the essay. Title should be relevant, unambiguous and attractive.

http://www.essaycapital.com/title_essay.htm

Quote:

Choose a title that emphasizes the main topic of your essay

http://www.west.asu.edu/koptiuch/SBS301_web/SBS301_essays.html

So either Medved is a horrible writer and picked a title that had nothing to do with his essay or you are in the minority about whether Leviticus is part of the topic of the essay. Considering Medved talks specifically about Leviticus in the essay, it is hard to claim it isn't on topic Fox.

0 Replies

Opinions noted gentlemen. And disagreement works two ways . I am not required to accept your premise any more than you are required to accept mine. I accepted that OE was debating something different than I was debating and said so. He was interested in mocking the Bible and focusing on that rather than the thesis that Medved presented.

I was interested in discussing Medved's thesis that the Bible does not support the President's theory that judges should be chosen on the basis of their empathy for special groups or that the government requires benevolence to the poor. (There are many who say the Bible does require that.) I patiently answered OE's questions and then posed one question for him to answer which he refused to do. He then complains when I pointed out the diversions and non sequiturs even while he tried to make the discussion what I believe about the Bible or what I must believe or what I must accept. He and others also wanted to drag in a lot of other Bible verses to attack rather than those specifically addressing the thesis.

And of course Parados chimed in doing what Parados usually does.

So I will again summarize Medved's thesis in case it is of interest to some:

Those who insist that the Bible teaches that government must provide for the poor and less fortunate and that judges must consider a person's disadvantaged status in life when rendering opinions doesn't hold up on a closer scrutiny of what the Bible says about that. Charity should be the choice of the individual or else it is not charity. Judges should not base their judicial opinions on anything other than strict application of the law as it is written and intended and whether a person is rich or poor or Republican or Democrat or straight or gay or male or female or anything else should not be factors in application of the law.

And the question that OE refused to answer: What makes it just to forcibly take property from the person who ethically and legally acquired it and give that property to another person who didn't?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I was interested in discussing Medved's thesis that the Bible does not support the President's theory that judges should be chosen on the basis of their empathy for special groups or that the government requires benevolence to the poor. (There are many who say the Bible does require that.)

Um. Does anyone say that? You sure this isn't a straw man?

Quote:

Those who insist that the Bible teaches that government must provide for the poor and less fortunate and that judges must consider a person's disadvantaged status in life when rendering opinions doesn't hold up on a closer scrutiny of what the Bible says about that.

I think this is a strawman.

Quote:

Charity should be the choice of the individual or else it is not charity.

Conversely, you should not get a tax break on charity - or it isn't charity, it's something you are doing to help yourself.

Quote:

Judges should not base their judicial opinions on anything other than strict application of the law as it is written and intended and whether a person is rich or poor or Republican or Democrat or straight or gay or male or female or anything else should not be factors in application of the law.

Fox - and this is a critical point - you are grossly oversimplifying things. It is not always clear what the 'intention' of laws was when they were written, and many laws themselves are rather vague and take judgment to apply.

Quote:

And the question that OE refused to answer: What makes it just to forcibly take property from the person who ethically and legally acquired it and give that property to another person who didn't?

Progressive taxation (which is what you are talking about) creates a better society for everyone, including the rich, even though they have to pay more.

Easy question, ask a tough one next time...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Of course disagreement works both ways. That doesn't mean you should get away with false accusations merely because you disagree with another poster's opinion.

Your (and Medved's) thesis was that Leviticus demands that judges follow the law, that generally treating the poor and the rich in different ways is unacceptable and that, as a consequence, any kind of tax system that is not a flat tax system is not in accordance with Leviticus.

I pointed out that there are indeed passages that call for different treatment of the rich and of the poor, that donations to the poor are in no way just a "voluntary" concept (as you would have it) and that noncompliance with the law as it's spelled out in Leviticus has serious repercussions. From there, it's very easy to conclude that according to Leviticus, both a progressive tax system and "forced transfer of wealth" are perfectly acceptable.

I realize that you agree neither with that premise nor with the conclusion, but it's just as valid as yours or Medved's. Arguing a different point of view of how Leviticus should be interpreted does in no way constitute "diversions and non sequiturs", as you would have it. Neither does it constitute a demand of what you "must believe" or what you "must accept". And I wasn't "dragging in Bible verses to attack", I was presenting a thesis that arrived at a different conclusion, using the same source that you and Medved were using. None of that makes me an idiot or a liar, as you would have it.

Foxfyre wrote:

So I will again summarize Medved's thesis in case it is of interest to some:

Those who insist that the Bible teaches that government must provide for the poor and less fortunate and that judges must consider a person's disadvantaged status in life when rendering opinions doesn't hold up on a closer scrutiny of what the Bible says about that. Charity should be the choice of the individual or else it is not charity. Judges should not base their judicial opinions on anything other than strict application of the law as it is written and intended and whether a person is rich or poor or Republican or Democrat or straight or gay or male or female or anything else should not be factors in application of the law.

That is exactly the topic I addressed. I agree with the general conclusion, from that passage, that judges should be unbiased. However, I've pointed out that according to Leviticus 19,9-10, giving to the poor is not a choice, but the law. I've also pointed out that the law is not just a guideline that you can follow if you agree with it, but that it will be enforced (see Leviticus 10, 1-2). I could also argue that the law treats people differently, according to their wealth and how much they can afford, and gives detailed descriptions of what a rich man must do or what the alternative is for a poorer man (just one example: Leviticus 5, 11).

I really have to repeat: neither you nor Medved have a monopoly on bible interpretation. In fact, your opinion about how donations to the poor should be purely voluntary, or Medved's interpretation that the only thing that could possibly be in agreement with the bible is a flat tax don't hold up on closer scrutiny of what the bible - specifically Leviticus - says about that.

Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm unfairly attacking the bible. Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm mentally incapable of understanding the thesis you present or the conclusion you draw from a specific bible verse. Pointing that out doesn't mean that I'm resorting to logical fallacies, ignoring the topic, lying, misrepresenting what was said or unable to have a civil discussion.

Get a grip.

Foxfyre wrote:

And the question that OE refused to answer: What makes it just to forcibly take property from the person who ethically and legally acquired it and give that property to another person who didn't?

I've answered your question right in this post here.

Again, just because I've answered a question in a way that you disagree with doesn't mean I haven't answered your question. Nevertheless, rather than questioning whether you're mentally capable of following a discussion, I'm just gonna chalk that up to sloppiness and a knee-jerk reaction that prevented you from reading my entire post before replying with a barrage of unwarranted accusations.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It would be a straw man if it wasn't true. You probably have never listened to or read Medved. I have.

Tax breaks for charitable contributions are a different subject than Medved's thesis, but what tax benefits should be allowed is definitely a topic appropriate for this thread. (Ican and I strongly disagree on that very point for instance when it was discussed previously.)

Anything is 'over simplified' in sound bites or in posts that of necessity be kept relatively short on a message board. But Medved was unquestionably addressing President Obama's remarks as to what sort of judges he would appoint and President's remarks on the ethical requirement for us to be our brother's keeper, et al. Medved used the Leviticus discussion as a means to illustrate why he thinks the President is wrong about that.

Progressive taxation is certainly another subject that has been discussed on this thread and elsewhere and remains a valid topic within a discussion of pros and cons of American Conservative. But I say, and I believe Medved would agree with me, that it cannot be properly addressed until the basic question is answered:

How is it just to forcibly take property from Citizen A who ethically and legally acquired it and give that property to Citizen B who didn't?

Important qualifier for that--addressed to OE--we are not talking about cooperative initiatives included in social contract such as shared schools, roads, sewer systems, power grids, police and fire protection etc. that benefit the whole. We are talking about taking property from one citizen and giving it to another citizen for that person's specific benefit.

We can add the next question that follows the first: How can the government forcibly take property from Citizen A who ethically and legally acquired it and give that property to Citizen B who didn't without that becoming a corrupting influence?

1 Reply

@old europe,

oe, It's useless to argue with Foxie about interpretations; she believes waterboarding is not torture even though lawyers familiar with this issue, domestic and international laws say it's illegal. You will not change her mind no matter how much "evidence" you can present that shows waterboarding is illegal. That should also tell you that her interpretation of most everything else will be wrong while she accuses "us" of misreading her posts, and it's us who doesn't understand what we're reading. It's a lost cause.

0 Replies

If Medved feels that liberals misuse scripture, then he is making the same mistake they are. He takes a political position and then searches for verses to support it. Medved even applies Leviticus falsely. Leviticus holds that there should be no bias to the poor in a court of law. Medved then starts babbling the following: "Does this mean that a system of progressive taxation constitutes the blurring of justice and charity that the Bible decries? The answer is almost certainly yes, and helps explain why so many conservatives yearn for a system of flat taxes or consumption taxes to replace the current nightmare of the IRS." Medved is now taking what Leviticus says about courts of law to an issue that is decided by legislatures (taxation). Medved starts with a typical conservative talking point and then stretches a bible passage to cover an issue it was never intended to cover.

3 Replies

@wandeljw,

That's true; taxation going back that far was never based on currency from any central government like the IRS. As the saying goes, you can't get blood out of a turnip. Some people never learned their history.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Very succinct, and very much to the point. I have nothing to add.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I would agree if Medved was teaching Bible. Actually I sort of agree anyway as I have long opposed 'proof texting' as a valid means of supporting a concept, and while I know Medved agrees with that, he should have made that point.

In my opinion, he wasn't intending to use the Bible as authority, but was rather countering those who have been using the Bible to justify President Obama's social initiatives. I wish Medved had also made that clearer in his essay, but he was no doubt constrained by word count and so he left stuff out that he almost certainly otherwise would have included.

Medved was making two points however: 1) There should be no bias based on a person's standing or status in a court of law, and 2) It is not the role of government to dispense charity. For better or worse, he chose the Leviticus passage as a means to illustrate the thesis.

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Medved was making two points however: 1) There should be no bias based on a person's standing or status in a court of law, and 2) It is not the role of government to dispense charity. For better or worse, he chose the Leviticus passage as a means to illustrate the thesis.

Michael Medved wrote:

Does this mean that a system of progressive taxation constitutes the blurring of justice and charity that the Bible decries? The answer is almost certainly yes, and helps explain why so many conservatives yearn for a system of flat taxes or consumption taxes to replace the current nightmare of the IRS.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

As usual with Medved, it was for the worse. He's the ultra-fundamentalist version of Rush Limbaugh.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

It would be a straw man if it wasn't true. You probably have never listened to or read Medved. I have.

Tsk tsk - Medved is based here in SF and I am well familiar with his racist rantings. It is a straw-man, unless you can actually show where people have said what you and Medved are claiming. It isn't enough that he asserts people claim that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

2) It is not the role of government to dispense charity.

You truly believe this? Many poor families survived because the government gave us (charity) enough to have shelter and food. We were children with a mother and no father.

Today, my older brother retired from being an Administrative Judge in California. My younger brother is an Ophthalmologist and served as mayor of his town, and also served in the state legislature for three terms. My younger sister is an RN. I'm more than positive that our taxes paid back more than what the government gave to our mother.

This is anecdotal, but if you understood anything about America, and how most people who lived during and after WWII (after the depression) understands that our country became strong based on how our government protected its citizens from starvation. That's all part and parcel of "for the general welfare." Without it, most would have starved and died.

You are pathetic.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Racist rantings? You have to be kidding. Medved is one of the gentlest, most non-offensive guys writing columns or doing conservative radio. A racist he is not. I am aware of the leftwing slurs on Daily Kos et al targeting him when he, like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, have attempted to put certain issues related to race into their proper perspective, but all conservatives are subjected to those kinds of slurs. Those who actually listen and read what these people say within the context in which they say it know they are not racists.

What I meant by 'straw man if it wasn't true' is that the essay I posted followed on the heels of a lot of public commentary of 'feeding the hungry', 'being our brothers' keeper', etc. based on interpretations of Biblical injunctions. It was obvious to me, based on hearing him recently, that he was countering that kind of commentary, but I wish he had made that clearer in his eassy.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It would be better if all political commentators avoided seeking affirmation from scripture. Anyone can pick a verse to prove that their god favors their political viewpoint. Gods are neither Democrat, Republican, nor Taliban.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

I agree. But where you and I apparently disagree is that I don't think Medved was doing that. There is a difference between using a Bible passage as illustration and using a Bible passage as proof. And there is a difference in using the Bible to rebut improper interpretations of the Bible, which is what Medved was doing in my opinion, and in holding the Bible up as authority for policy.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Medved was making two points however: 1) There should be no bias based on a person's standing or status in a court of law, and 2) It is not the role of government to dispense charity. For better or worse, he chose the Leviticus passage as a means to illustrate the thesis.

Point 1. There is a bias based on the lawyer a person can afford for court. If you want there to be no bias then everyone MUST have equal representation. (It doesn't matter how you want to define equal in that sentence Fox. Whether it means a qualified lawyer with the same resources or everyone gets the same lawyer.)
2. Unless you are willing to have the government dispense charity you will be forced to require the rich not hire lawyers.

1 Reply

@parados,

It is the responsibility of government, according to our Constitution, that all people, rich and poor, shall have equal access to justice. That is taken seriously enough that a Public Defender will be appointed and paid for by the court for any person who cannot afford a lawyer. But it is not the responsibility of government to assess the gifts and abilities of the lawyer other than to certify that the lawyer is qualified to practice law. Surely you aren't suggesting that the judge should do more than judge whether the prosecution or plaintiff and the defendent have equal opportunity to present their cases and that lawyer misconduct is not condoned?

It is bad enough to suggest that a judge decide a case based on which party he cares about the most. Add more outrageous injustice to that should he also factor in his opinion of the lawyers making the case.

There are privileges and advantages that go hand in hand with affluence, of course, but it is not the responsibility of government to make anybody rich or to equalize disparity between rich and poor. It is the responsibility of government to not favor the rich.....or the poor.....and not to place any hindrance on any person who, by legal and ethical means, aspires to affluence.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know