metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I briefly explained it in my post #101.
Again, tax monies don't disappear, but if one believes the Pubs and who may not really understand basic macro-economics, I can see how they might think so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Texas pastor openly calls on 'Christian nationalists' to 'impose their values on society'
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Again, tax monies don't disappear, but if one believes the Pubs and who may not really understand basic macro-economics, I can see how they might think so.
And yet, if you look at history, it's the Democrats who are the more fiscally responsible.PolitiFact - Here's how the deficit performed under Republican and Democratic presidents, from Reagan to Trump
https://towardsdatascience.com/which-party-adds-more-to-deficits-a6422c6b00d7
What were the tax rates during America's periods of greatest growth and prosperity?
Consider what's done with taxes, at least under Democratic administrations: They pay for social services: infrastructure, education, healthcare, police and fire protection, consumer and environmental protections, and a social safety net. Higher taxes pay for themselves in lower consumer costs for government subsidized services.
Then you might want to read some political and economic history.
Nice try. I never said that Pubs don't also
raise taxes (eg, Bush) & enhance deficits.
But liberals are the one's always clamoring
for higher taxes. That was my claim.
Do you even know what the tax rates were?
I just posted recently showing that average
actual tax rates changed little over the
decades. If you focus upon marginal rates,
you paint a false picture because those don't
consider tax complexities, eg, tax avoidance
mechanisms/deductions.
Liberals...always believing they haveThen you might want to read some political and economic history.
the facts...The Truth. Anyone who dares
disagree is just an uneducated rube.
I'm an educated rube!
You might want to do some analysis.
Not just parrot popular left wing claims.
Last edited:
Accept = agree that they are right and allow everything to go by them.
I think the problem is that it is not just about letting people live their own life as they want, but that the ideologies come for example to schools and public situations where it is not just tolerating private life but pushing it also for others, forcing others to be part of it or to accept it.
I would understand that atheists don't want Christian message to be seen in schools to their kids. And that is why I can accept that schools don't have any of that, unless the people accept it. Same is with the LG.... group propaganda. I understand that some Christians don't want it to be in public school.
Person living his own life as he wants is not pushing values to others, as long as he is not forcing others to be part of it and his lifestyle. This is why I think it would be best, if for example public school have only neutral things that are not religious or philosophical issues accepted by everyone in the school.
This means also, atheist pushing values is not only saying people are not allowed to pray, but also for example preaching others "don't believe, God is not real....". It is about promoting their values and world view against listeners will and forcing them to be part of their lifestyle.
Maybe this means society should be divided to two separate groups. That way people would not have to live by other groups ideas that they don't agree with.
The whole book revolves around a wager.
Then let God administer it.
Q: Should a child be stoned if he disrespects his father? What does the Bible prescribe for homosexuals?
Didn't God ordered a slaughter of the Amalekites and all the inhabitants of Canaan, including women, children and livestock?
How about the Egyptian plagues in Exodus? Moses warns Pharaoh multiple times to to let his people go, or there will be a plague, but it was all a game. Each time God "hardened Pharaoh's heart," so he wouldn't agree, and God got to inflict a new plague. Apparently God was enjoying the suffering of innocents.
The system? Do you mean a political or economic system, like Nazism, or syndicalism?
The evil comes from whomever performs the evil, or whomever orders the evil knowing it will be performed. We are responsible for our own actions, and must never follow immoral orders. Noöne can take another's sins upon himself.
It's up to each individual to assess the morality of each proposed or ordered action, and act accordingly.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That was how I was trained even as a professional soldier.
Huh?
If people kept their hazardous waste on their own land, there wouldn't be a pollution problem. But people don't. They dump wherever's convenient, and even when they dump on their own land, pollutants don't stay put.
????? People buy harmful stuff all the time: Foods, chemicals, guns, cigarettes, &c, for any number of reasons.
The God of the Bible seems to have no problem with slavery.
As for deals, in many cases, employees are essentially powerless, they either accept the wages and working conditions offered, or they're on their own. Leave wages and conditions unregulated, and labor would be reduced to little more than slaves
Neutral subjects? With the possible exception of maths, what subject would have no political, religious or philosophical ramifications?
What "values" does atheism have, and when does it preach?
*Atheism, per se, is a simple lack of belief, like a lack of belief in leprechauns. Lack of belief in leprechauns has no 'values' and noöne preaches it.
*Essential atheism doesn't claim there is no God. It claims there is no empirical evidence of gods, and withholds belief, pending evidence.
*Atheism isn't a lifestyle, any more than a-leprechaunism or a dislike of paisley is.
*Nobody opposes prayer in school, it's just no longer permitted as part of the curriculum. Any student is free to pray anytime s/he wants.
Any time you divide people into separate ideological groups you're likely to get squabbles and discord, as well as schisms developing within each group.
Groups larger than Dunbar's number are not natural, and are inherently precarious without deliberate social engineering.
Why do you think that accept means that you have to agree with their views, or that you give away all your power to them? I don't understand accepting others as they are to mean that I have to agree with them. I see it as respecting that they have and hold different beliefs and ideas and values and ways of life that are simply different from me. I get to retain my own beliefs and values. And they get to retain theirs. That's a win-win reality.
You seem to be framing this as a win-lose situation, and it better be yourself who wins. Why do you see it as a battle for dominance, rather than an opportunity to learn cooperation and community?
I think this is overstating reality by those who are politicians who deliberately stoke fears of a battle that they need to fight in a culture war, in order to be put into positions of power elected by those they have riled up into voting for them.
For instance, "the gay agenda". I remember hearing this when I was in Bible college in the 80s, how allowing homosexuals to be school teachers would put them in a position to influence children into the "gay lifestyle", as the term they manufactured to dismiss homosexuality as if it were a choice.
Even then, as strong believer in a fundamentalist conservative right wing Christian church and Bible college, I thought that was a specious argument that fell on its own. Are gays coming to class to teach their children in pink feather boas, or promoting boys to kiss other boys, and girls to date other girls, handing out fliers on the joys of homosexuality? Are they talking about their sex with the lovers at home? Were they trying to evangelize children to become gay, or something? Yet that is how it was being presented to us, as if there was some hidden underlying agenda to influence children into sin.
Just to add, I didn't feel that way about such an argument because I was gay, or bisexual or anything, or even knew homsexual people for that matter. I'm just a plain old straight white boy from a smaller midwestern town raised in mainstream conservative middle class family. Their argument in Bible college, which was originated by Jerry Falwell and friends, just didn't make sense to me, and sounded more like them being afraid that those who were different from them, had the same secretive hidden agendas they did in proselytizing school children.
Eventually, I saw though that whole facade of theirs and left their church. None of that had anything to do with the teachings and ways of Jesus and Christianity. It detracted from it and tainted it with politics masquerading as Christianity.
I believe schools should be inclusive and neutral. That's why things like saying mandatory school prayer, for instance is "ramming religion down people's throats", where they might not practice that specific religion, or any religion at all. Christian groups who then claim this as "kicking God out of schools", are distorting reality, and disregarding and disrespecting those who choose to not be religious. Again, I figured this out on my own in Bible college, as a young believer. They were manipulating politics to promote the "religion agenda". That's the message they sent to me a young student.
Again, I knew this was not what Christianity was really about, because I read my Bible, like they said I should.
Agreed. Which means that you can have gay teachers, so long as they don't abuse their positions to promote their own ideologies, the same as any other teacher of any other sexual orientation or belief systems. They should be treated the same as everyone else. Otherwise, that's not fair. Is it?
I would agree with this. I would not be happy with an evangelical atheist, anymore than I would be an evangelical Christian using the school for their religious agenda and conservative lifestyle platforms to influence my child towards that belief system. Agreed?
Now we are back to the real heart of this discussion here. Why can't we just allow each other to be as they are, believe as they do, and yet despite these differences we learn to live together with each other without having to either become them or them become us in order to get along together?
Isn't that truely the heart of a Christian philosophy? Unity in diversity? Isn't that rising above tribal boundaries, where we "Love our neighbor as ourselves"? Why do they have to be like us in order for us to love and show respect to them? Jesus didn't set that condition. Did he?
I think it would be best, if teachers would only teach neutral things and keep their private life out of the teachings. And I think also all books that promote ideologies or world views should be out of public school. If parents want to teach for example Christianity, it would be best to do it at home, or private Christian school. And same is with all other ideologies or world views. If parents want their children to be communists, they should have a school for communists...
It seems to me that the problem is that it is difficult to allow others to be what they are. Why for example LG... group must have pride month pushed to everyone, why could they not just keep private party and not force everyone else see it?
But Jesus also said, "sin no more" (John 5:14). If one loves, he tells if he thinks something is wrong and harmful. But obviously it can be said in respectful way. Jesus don't say we should be united with everyone, only that disciples of Jesus should be one.
Whoever doesn’t receive you, nor hear your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust from your feet.
Matt. 10:14
I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11
that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21
Christians should not force others to be like them, but neither they should be part of something that is not good.
Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what communion has light with darkness? What agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever? What agreement has a temple of God with idols? For you are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
2 Cor. 6:14-16
Some seem to think that even math is racist, so maybe there is no neutral subject, which is why it could be that only voluntary private schools are acceptable. Personally, I think reading, math, chemistry, biology, physics, history and civics can be neutral. And with civics I mean in this case how the society/government works. And history is ok, if it is told neutrally.
Yes, I can agree that atheism has no values. Sorry, "values" was not a good word choice. I meant more like a world view that atheists commonly have, that "God is not real".
I like this idea:
Perhaps it is wrong to say that someone owns the land. Who would have the right to say that land belongs to some individual? And how someone gets that right?
Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave. People can always choose something else.
I meant political system (Democracy, kingdom...), but I think as well economical system. It is only as good as she people in it.
Sorry, I don't see anything in the Bible that indicates a wager. Can you give a specific scripture that makes you to think there is a wager?
I don't see any reason to think they are innocent.
In this case I think it is important to look how God "hardened Pharaoh's heart". It happened by ending a plague. Every time plague ended, pharaohs heart was hardened. Now, was it evil from God to end the plagues, should he have kept them going eternally so that pharaohs heart would not have hardened?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
God's wager with Satan in the "Book of Job".
I think all educators and all parents believe this is best. I believe that too. Religious teachers shouldn't be pushing their religion on students, and so forth. So all teachers, gay or straight, should be doing this.
I don't see why you believe someone being gay means that they don't do this? Do you believe they are promoting being gay, simply by being gay, regardless of what they say or teach in the classroom?
I'm not so sure about the idea of banning books in school libraries, once students are of a certain age of course. Obviously, you don't stock the libraries of elementary schools with age-inappropriate material. Once you're talking highschool and stuff, then exposing children to different points of views, is important for the purpose of a broad education.
Simply exposing children at age-appropriate stages of development to different ideas, is not the same thing as "promoting" those ideas. Unless you believe in book burning and suppressing information is good for people?
I think about it like this. Things like gay pride month, or things like Black History month, and such, are not "pushing" it on others. What it is is them asserting themselves rather than them being pushed into a corner, or a closet, or ignored and repressed socially. Those pride month, or history month, etc, for different repressed groups, are simply for one purpose: Raising public awareness of them as equal citizens.
You don't consider a civil rights march to be blacks pushing their blackness on us, do you? We should learn to respect and appreciate those of our own culture, whereas they have been historical mistreated by culture at large. That's all these things are for. Raising awareness of them as part of this country too, blacks, women, gays, native people's, etc', who have all been historically mistreated by us.
So if someone considers them "coming out of the closet" of repressions we in mainstream culture have forced them into through shame and ridicule and systemic separations, as them "pushing their values on us", haven't you considered that is was US, who pushed our values on them, and pushed them out of society?
That is really the first cause here. And them standing up and saying "Hey, I'm here. Don't ignore me", is not them pushing us. It them simply asking us to be recognized. That's not so bad, is it?
Ah, but before you think you can tell someone that you think something is wrong, you'd best do personal inventory first. That process is enough in itself for you to take your focus off of others. "First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye".
You see, if we are feeling compelled to call another a sinner and point out their flaws, Jesus instructs us to instead turn that focus upon ourselves. It's far too easy to avoid looking at ourselves, by looking at others. "But what about them!", is a good way for us to avoid looking at ourselves. And what we find when we do look at ourselves, is that we aren't any better than anyone else. If we recognize our own flaws, and come to accept them, then we are less prone to fault find others.
But I do have to ask. Is being black and standing up for yourself from being pushed around, sinful? Is being a Native American, a sin? Do they need to become White Christians in order to be good people? Obviously not. And we know better today that someone being homosexual is not a choice. It is no more a choice than the color of your skin is a choice. Those who called it a "lifestyle choice" (Jerry Falwell Sr.), were absolutely uninformed and politically motivated. These are all confirmable facts. Why on earth would a young man choose to make himself afraid of the society he lives in, exposing himself to shame and guilt? That's insane.
But even so, even if you wish to deny that what we know today about homosexuality, which has been with us from the very beginning, and is found in other animal species of the world to the same percentages you see in the human species, it is still not up to you to "take the mote out of your brothers eye." It is not up to you to try to "fix" others.
This should not be misused to say, if you don't believe what I believe, you are rejecting God. Christians disagree with each other all the time. But to misuse scripture to say to those who disagree with you that they are rejecting God, is an offense against your brother or sister. It is abusing God.
Amen. And how do they be one as "we are one"? Love. Not judging and trying to fix each other. "Woman where are thy accusers? Neither do I condemn you." I have found that those who condemn others, are themselves afraid of being condemned. That's why they do that.
Then you choose for yourself not to participate in something that you don't want to. No one is forcing you to march in a gay pride parade. But it sounds like you are saying Christians shouldn't allow gay pride parades to happen. It's the duty of a Christian to stop gays from saying they are gay. Correct?
Again, you don't have to join in a groups meetings, in order to not stand outside their meeting places and protest them meeting, or threatening to blow them up or some awful form of violence. Right? Where is Christian Grace in such actions? Where is humility?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
A student can pray many times in a given day, including when at school.
Where are schools supposedly teaching communism?
OK, so you're pro-death.
Seems that $ is very high on your list and people rank much lower.
Heyo
Veteran Member
In good schools.
As long as it's not propaganda (pro or contra), a comparative study of political systems is good education.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, but I believe the post I responded was likely referring to students being indoctrinated.
BTW, even when a teacher may be talking about "communism", they hopefully should differentiate between Marxism v the communism that Jamestown Colony had.