Speaking of propaganda...

The desire to help these "unfortunates" is born of smug sanctimony and only perpetuates their "misfortune."
Yes of course, at least that's what jesus said in his loaves and fishes speech.

Dyslexia,

Are you suggesting that we should formulate government policy based upon what we think Jesus would want?

Jesus wasn't the first to promote socialist ideas, he wasn't (won't) be the last. Dys, only suggests an idea that should be readily agreeable for such a devote christian as yourself.

It seems you are comfortable letting some get two fishes and some getting no fishes.

It's not for me to reconsile your contrary beliefs.

T
K
O

I thought liberals were all about separation of church and state, that's why I asked.

Deist, do you think we should formulate government policy based upon what we think Jesus would want?

A simple yes or no would answer it.

Answer: No. Policy should not be based on any religious doctrine.

That doesn't mean that religion can claim ownership of al ideas either. If you want to try and argue that Christianity deserves credit for the idea of sharing, I'd be glad to let you make a fool of yourself.

T
K
O

I'm pretty sure that I recall that McG once revealed he is not of the Christian faith, and I don't know about Finn. But I bet the two of them mostly agree on the best way(s) to help the poor.

Which is pretty much how I think Jesus would advise on helping the poor.

I would be delighted if you got a straight answer from Dys or TKO, RL, but it sure would be interesting if you did.

(Addendum: Acknowledging that TKO did respond of sorts which sort of negates his disdainful metaphor of the loaves and fishes I think.)

I can't make this any simpler for the cons. Figure it out. I am not inclined to make law from religious doctrine, but it doesn't mean that I can't suggest an idea and leverage your own beliefs against you as argument.

T
K
O

Careful what you define as 'my belief'.

Jesus NEVER stated the role of government was to care for the poor.

He called upon individuals to do so.

To characterize Christ as 'socialist' is to be completely mischaracterize what He said and to whom He said it.

Also, until FDR, it never occurred to those in government that it was the duty of government to care for the poor. More than one President stated that there was no constitutional authority to do so.

At the same time the government from the beginning has supported, aided, and abetted "Christian" (or any other) charity for the purpose of meeting human needs and private initiatives to give from the heart. So we exempt charitable organizations from taxes and our charitable contributions are deductible from our taxes. And Americans remain the most generous of people.

Even FDR's modest government charity met strong resistance from the Supreme Court who finally allowed it on a 5/4 vote amidst his attempts to pack the court with six additional judges of his own choosing who would then let him do whatever he wanted. The four judges voting against him also ruled it unconstitutional to confiscate property from Citizen A who earned it in order to give it to Citizen B who didn't.

From that time on it didn't take politicians any time at all to learn that they could use our money to buy themselves votes even as they made the people more and more dependent upon their government giving government power over the people that it was never intended to have.

Jesus was a very wise fellow.

Jesus was a liberal.

Yes he was, but a classical liberal who based his opinions on common sense and with attention to how good intentions can produce unintended bad consequences.

But would you vote for him if he came back and ran against McCain?

Not unless he did some kind of miracle. Perhaps turning water into a fine 12-year old scotch for example...

If Jesus existed, to say he was a liberal is an understatement.


There is a far distance between confiscating property from individuals and taxing them. You seem to be against the redistribution of wealth, but you fail to see that your own ideas do exactly that redistribute wealth upwards.

The trickle down effect doesn't work.
K
Our money is top heavy.

If the purpose of taxation is to take from one person in order to benefit another, that is confiscating the property of Citizen A who earned it and giving it to Citizen B who didn't. That was never the Founder's intention nor was it their intention that government have the power to 'redistribute wealth'. They understood the real dangers of giving government those kinds of powers.

It is not my responsibility to make YOU wealthy. It is YOUR responsibility to make the kinds of choices that will allow you to increase your own holdings, and it is government's reponsibility to create a system in which you have the freedom to do that.

Citizen A stayed in school, educated himself, didn't get pregnant or get somebody pregant, did not abuse substances, stayed away from illegal activities, paid his dues by taking whatever work was available to develop a work ethic and references, learned a trade to support himself, waited until he could support a family to have kids, and thus contributed to the economy and indirectly to the welfare of all.

Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how it is moral for the government to force Citizen A to then support Citizen B who dropped out of school, wouldn't work to keep a job, did drugs and booze, maybe had a kid or three without benefit of a dependable husband, got in trouble with the law, and otherwise made choices guaranteed to keep him or her poor.

Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how it is moral for government to encourage and sometimes even reward the kinds of choices made by Citizen B while confiscating more and more of Citizen A's property the more successful Citizen A becomes.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless among us though that does not necessarily have to be done by the government. Moral people accept responsibility for contributing to society by supporting themselves instead of being a drain on society and expect to be held accountable when they fail to do that.

Yes anybody can need help from others and, when we do, we should be grateful when such help is made available to us. But nobody should think that it is their right that everybody else support them.

I guess we'll have to take your word on it, because you say so.

Jesus never rode an elephant.

T
K
O

You don't have to take my word for it. Just look up a good definition of 'classical liberal' and then read the words attributed to Jesus and what those close to him and his disciples said about him. It isn't rocket science.

Meanwhile please explain how it is moral to require Citizen A who made responsible choices so that he could prosper to support Citizen B who was mostly irresponsible?

Why don't you tell us about that time you and Jesus participated in that leveraged buyout together and made a killing in the stock market? Or the time you wanted to buy a hybrid car and Jesus told you, "screw the environment, just get the hummer."

These are the kinds of things that would really help make your case.

Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Matthew 5:7

As a rocket scientist, I can support that, yes, this is, in fact, not rocket science.

The part about your post which we have to take on your word is that Jesus' ideas were "common sense and with attention to how good intentions can produce unintended bad consequences." Seems like your homeboy was more about the good actions and not just the intentions.

I'm sure your intentions are good.

False premise: You assume that Citizen A is prosperous because he/she was responsible. Very poor assumption.

That's certainly important, but it's far from the hinge.

The idea that this is a "moral" issue is laughable as well.

What about those hard working americans that are living poor? What of your notion of responsibility now?

T
K
O