The US, UN & Iraq III

I'm sorry, Tartarin. You must have run into some really bad examples. (So have I, so I understand where you're coming from.) The religion I try to practice always encourages me to think, and highly values secular education...especially advanced degrees.

The unfortunate thing about many churches is that they attract the kind of people who want the assurance of always being "right." I find that abhorrent. I suspect you do, too. Try not to lump all of us into that category, okay? There are a lot of good folks out there who are involved in religion because they're trying to do...and be...better. Not "right," but better.

Visitor (stuffed pepper!), Give some details of your personal experience, if you would. I'm not at all unsympathetic, but I believe America's non-fundamentalist Christian churches -- including the "thinkies" like the Friends (my heritage), Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists -- have a lot to answer for in their passive response to fundamentalism. When I've raised that issue in past disussions, the response has usually been, "Well, we've tried but, well, you know... church politics."...

"The unfortunate thing about many churches is that they attract the kind of people who want the assurance of always being "right." I find that abhorrent. I suspect you do, too."

Yes indeed. I've had conversations (initiated usually by me) with those folks and am fascinated by the fact that they seem to need to convince -- as though their faith depends on the aquiescence of anyone they're talking to, being unable to stand on its own legs. Those are the militants' cannon fodder -- the desperate believers. My own beliefs (and yours, I suspect) run so deep that they don't need agreement from others, don't need a church or other external affirmation, to survive. I don't scorn the uncertain, believe me, but I have it in for the sects who build power out of their uncertainties. The ignorance factor lies in the willing suspension of disbelief practiced by those sects.

Hey, Tartarin (brat!)...Stuffed Pepper here.

I don't think it's wise to expound on my own personal beliefs here. I would only make myself a target for those looking for a fight in the name of "intellectual debate." You are right...my own beliefs do run as deep as you stated so well.

As to my actions, I simply consider myself a Christian. I have been a member of several organized groups for the purpose of accomplishing more as a group than I can alone. I've run into the same types you have, maybe even more often than you do, but I also know a lot of very good people who inspire me to be more creative, more forgiving, and more thoughtful of others than I usually am. Because of them, I hang in there.

Anytime you get a big group of people together for any reason...religious, economic, political, social, educational, etc....you inherently have infighting and political divisions. It's just a flaw in human nature. Churches are no different. Sometimes they're better, sometimes they're worse.

Hope that answers some of your questions. I welcome discussion, but I'm not looking for argument. I get enough of that at work.

In one of Samuel Clemens literary fragments, there is a brief passage of conversation between a colt and his sire, about the human concept of heaven, in which the colt asks his sire if he will go to heaven when he dies . . .

"Not if you're good, son . . . "

Action has been taken against member henrygreen for violating Section III B of the Terms of Service. We take threats of physical harm very seriously. Thank you to all who reported this user's comments.

Regarding Gelisgesti's post of Sun May 25, 2003 7:41 pm about:

Bush's War on the Poor
Economic Justice

By DAVID KRIEGER

The above is pretty tame stuff compared with Paul Krugman's column in today's NYT. A sample:



Complete text at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/opinion/27KRUG.html


Mr. Krugman (along with others) has been asking the question of Americans of why they don't see the danger of this Tax Cut for many moons. Unfortunately most will not realize what has happened to them until it is perhaps too late to do anything about the tanking economy. Where are the Dems on this?

Remember the big argument about what to do about the budget surplus right before the last presidential election? Thanks to Bush's earlier tax cuts that argument became moot. That surplus went the way of the Dodo bird and we are now enjoying federal deficit economics...again. This article suggests radical "conservatives" plan to put the country so far into debt that plans such as Medicare, Social Security, and Educational Programs will have to be cut back, if not totally eliminated. Many Americans will see this as a betrayal of trust, but it will be too late. Before agreeing with the radical conservatives in getting government totally out of the social construction business we must make sure that what is wished for is what we really need. Do we really need Fannie Mae or the FHA to help us buy homes? Keep in mind that most economists point to home sales as the sole driving factor keeping the present economy from entering a decline.

The wholesale elimination of Federal programs would be far-reaching and draconian.

JM

I may be wrong,but dont most of the Bush tax cuts take effect in 2006?
I know most of them havent taken place yet. If that is the case,how can something that has not yet happened be blamed for what is happening now?

MM - Don't expect logic or rational thought to enter into Krugman's arguments. It seems that he learned long ago that the ultra-liberal choir to whom he's preaching won't challenge him in that regard, as they don't consider such things either.

Visitor, I guess I edited out the "don't want to draw you into an argument" comment I made, above. The last thing I want here is an argument but I wish I could understand why a fairly cohesive community (non-Fundamental Christians) haven't protested. The explanation I've heard several times is "church politics." But I don't think that's adequate rationalization for inaction in the face of a militant group which is giving Christianity a bad name and is also well on the way to creating a social and political schism...

Really, I'm trying to see the rose...!!

How can something that is passed to stimulate the economy happen in 2006 - seems to me that someone is trying to butter the bread on both sides; yet once again. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Tartarin..."a fairly cohesive community"?!?!?! Did you really say that?! ROTFLMAO!!! We're CONSTANTLY splitting up and going our separate ways over every tiny little issue that comes up! Look at our history! There must be thousands of different kinds of "Christians" by now!!!

Okay, I'll calm down now. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Sorry...

I suppose the only answer I can give you is that we look at the poor fundamentalists as the "weird uncles" of the family. Every group's got 'em. We try to be the tolerant ones. And that's not a bad thing.

Remember, we also have to tolerate the drunks, the cheaters, the hypocrites, the stuffed shirts, the legalists and the pseudo-intellectuals. Among others. And we've got our own flaws. We're just a great big dysfunctional family. But name one this size that isn't. What amazes me is that we manage to accomplish as many good things as we do.

mysteryman

MM
The provisions of this tax cut go into effect immediately in fact they will be retroactive to the beginning of this current year.

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

President Bush has scored a major political victory on tax cuts, but a central question still looms over his signature domestic initiative: Will those cuts boost a flagging economy? Unlike the first round of Bush tax cuts, this one "front-loads" reductions in income-tax rates, rather than having them kick in gradually. Its $330 billion in 10-year tax cuts is bolstered by $20 billion in aid to state and city governments. Republicans are counting on the package, which could start affecting worker paychecks by July, to improve a job climate that remains stubbornly weak

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0523/p01s01-usec.html


Sorry to burst your bubble.

au, You don't say, but I'd like to ask you, who does this tax cut really benefit? c.i.

ie, not the pittance given to the large amount of low and middle income earners but the large amounts given to the wealthy - in a lot of cases, the full value of my home given every year, absolutely wowser!

Visitor -- You've answered my question, but probably not exactly as you intended... (Ho ho?)

I just posted this on another thread, but it belongs here:

There was a wonderful report just now on NPR about the lifting of the limit on the nation's debt. NPR reported that Bush signed the lifting of the limit today "and no cameras were present." The lifting of the debt limit was made necessary by the big tax cuts, a measure "which will be signed by the president with cameras present."

(As this was being reported and I was chuckling grimly, I thought to myself about Bush not really knowing much about the details of what he was signing. It's his advisors who tell him what to do. And, as with all administrations, he will carry the can if there's a political backlash or if serious economic problems result from the increasted national debt. But the advisors -- we barely know their names and faces -- will simply move on to other administrations and think tanks...)

Or, should I just be happy "THEY" allow me to have a home?

Not me I am not rich enough. Do I believe the tax cuts will help stimulate the economy? No. as you can see from the link I included.
The only thing that I was pointing out to the several who said they will not take effect till 06 that they were in error. In fact as you can see some of them will expire or sunset in several years. That will never happen and the cut will be far steeper and damaging than advertised.

Bill
Are you sure?

CI
This from MSNBC: though my interpretation of the numbers
Family of four $50,000 income -save about $100. bucks a month till 2008
Family of four 100,000 save about 200. bucks a month till 2008
Family of four 300,000 save about 525. bucks a month till 2008

above that
make a cool 1.2 million a year? good. save 8,886.00 a month which ironically is MORE than the guy making $100,000 makes in a month.

But the point is, says the Bushites, this tax cut is going to create jobs.
Good. After losing 65,000 plus jobs a months since taking office, it's about time to make a few. Who wants to bet if the job rate in August is half as bad, say only losing 30,000 jobs a month, this administration win claim victory on the job front.???

Scrat, I need some input here. I had come to similar conclusions about what the effect might be of the tax cuts. A crash of the economy and then hasty revisions of social programs to balance things out.

What is your take on this? I see not much good from huge tax cuts balanced against an aging population with demands from SS and medicare and medicaid. Can you help me with some good news here?