Really? Because it seems to me that this is the first time on this thread that you’ve mentioned any concern you personally have for the poor. (yes, I read your blog and have commented on it already)

“You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary”

You are misrepresenting what I have said – again. That tactic is as juvenile as it is transparent.

“I, on the other hand, do not believe that taxation is the best way to “gain” in society.”

Great, you have ideals and believe that there is a better way, but you have yet to describe what that means in the real world. You can’t submit a proposal for a project and expect others to get behind it by merely stating your principles and ideals. You have to describe how it will work, and you haven’t done that.

The Church, based on scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers (i.e. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Smyrna, Irenaeus of Lyons, John Chrysostom, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, et al. – men recognized by both Catholics and Protestants as authorities on Christian beliefs and principles), has described the functions and responsibilities of both individuals and the collective society to provide for the common good. A system of government that uses taxation to provide revenue for the state meets those requirements, albeit, imperfectly.

I don’t share your vision because you have not begun to describe to me how some of me most basic services currently paid for by tax revenues would be provided in your utopian society. You’ve only replied that we need to be more creative.

Alright, here’s my creativity for you: I work within and imperfect system. If something better comes along, I’ll work with that.

Don’t expect me to support a revolution based solely on your ideals and principles. That type of coup d’état tends to end badly.

“I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, right?”

Now, where have I heard that before? Didn’t I post that several days ago?

“Maybe it'll all be sorted out in the afterlife.”

I was under the impression that you weren’t willing to wait that long.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black.

Likewise.

What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life. I'm simply not in favor of political means to accomplish those goals. You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary (though failing to point out a place i can voluntarily live that has no taxes, which kinda defeats the idea of it being voluntary unless such a place exists); this is fine. Most citizens don't mind paying taxes because they believe they have some sort of gain from it. I, on the other hand, do not believe that taxation is the best way to “gain” in society. So we disagree. No big deal. Lots of Christians disagree.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, right? Maybe it'll all be sorted out in the afterlife.

It's really not that complicated.

Try, if you can, to imagine yourself as being poor. Now do you see wealth inequality as a problem?

For someone who is wealthy, wealth inequality is not a problem – that person has what s/he needs, perhaps more than enough. For someone who is poor, wealth inequality is a problem because that person lacks what s/he needs.

The person who is wealthy has no need to be concerned about her/his physical well-being and no reason to be concerned about the physical well-being of others, so no need to be concerned that someone else lacks material well-being.

Please don’t feed me a platitude, however Biblical, that the poor person should be happy in his station.

“I love how you never actually answer my questions”

That’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Are you kidding?

Those who resisted civil rights were not about equality… that's kinda obvious, though.

I think we're agreed on something!

Yup. Very much agreed here. I

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

And there's more than one way for those “at the top” to protect their turf.

LV

Actually, they certainly can be if we're not careful, which is the point. There's nothing inherently wrong with having things in and of itself, but if we seek our identity through our superior status … that's where we get into trouble. Equality is a very threatening thing to folks at the top, which is why there was so much resistance to, say, the civil-rights movement.

From Luke 3:14:

Then some soldiers asked [John the Baptist], “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely — be content with your pay.” Note that he was speaking to people already in authority, not the poor.

I think you missed the point — he was speaking about engagement and priorities. To borrow the cliche, do we take the time to smell the flowers?

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out?

They're the most visible and who, really, drive the culture.

Out of curiosity, in what ways do you show your Christian love for your poor neighbor?

It’s easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich.

I believe that actions speak louder than words.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2443 – 2449
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

2544 – 2547
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

To some of you this might sound like an indictment of capitalism, but if you think about it it could just as easily apply to the current President's economic stimlus bill, which also moves a lot of little green pieces of paper around.

If you say that people cannot have dignity unless they have roughly equal incomes (especially in a society where the overwhelming majority of people already have adequate food, a roof over their heads, and at least a couple changes of clothes) is this not every bit as materialistic as an ad that says life is worthless unless you drive a Porsche?

LV