Debate is flying about the proposed economic stimulus package, with many Republicans wanting less spending and more tax cuts for business. Check out this info from Moody's (via EPI.com and featured in the January issue of Sojourners magazine) about what kind of stimulus actually works.
Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor for Sojourners.
Totalitarianism is not necessarily a component of fascism, authoritarianism is. And the difference between the two is that individual freedoms and existing social institutions are, in some form, preserved. Political freedoms are obviously limited, but issues like religion and whatever form of due process a particular country may follow would typically be left unchanged, and only small segments of the population would be targets of violence. I didn't say that America is a fascist country, I said that we are trending in that direction. There are obvious ways in which we are not fascist, including the two party system and representative government, although we are under the control of one party or the other and with the exception of social issues, they differ very little. We aren't ruled by a single man for decades, but we are ruled for decades by like minded men.
Widespread ignorance of what a word actually means shouldn't prevent anyone from using it correctly. Should I say this is socialism? I guess it fits the contemporary definition, no matter how outrageous it may be.
"And if you expect people to be able to filter out Mussolini from the term Fascism, well, what I'm telling you is, it ain't gonna happen."
Fascism is from Mussolini's Italy. If people are ignorant of the connection between ancient Greece and democracy, its roots are still in ancient Greece. I read the comments on this blog frequently and I would expect most of the regular readers would consider whether we'ver on a fascist track based on a historical understanding of fascism rather than a knee jerk reaction. I think you underestimate the ability of the Sojo crowd to see my point for what it is. Most of them probably don't agree, but they aren't covering their ears yelling "I can't hear you, the US doesn't kill Jews, I can't hear you." There are some venues where the emotional nature of this debate might make it inappropriate to have this discussion, but I don't think this is one of them.
A thought from George Orwell: "Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."
I think there is a difference between tyranny and policy with tyrannical implications. I agree that governments should not pick winners and losers w/r/t the American economy. I further agree that the ideological principle behind this stands fully in favor of tyranny.
I further disagree with the contention that we must do SOMETHING simply to avoid the mistake of not doing anything. That is terrible reasoning.
At present, however, our leaders are not practicing tyranny, as there is no ideological guiding principle behind their actions. What we are witnessing is incompetence. If Nancy Pelosi were acting from her intellect, it would be fair to call her a tyrant.
That said, given that all the immigration discussions here go from zero to Hitler in three posts, I'm not sure what has Squeaky riled up.
What is amazing to me is that people who talk about the "trickle up" vs. "trickle down" economic theories are missing out on the fact that both end up benefiting one bloc of people instead of everyone equally.
Why do we assume that money should be redistributed by incompetent politicians and given to a group of people (either poor or rich) who are really just voters being bought out?
Essentially the problem is that the State is trying to "stimulate" the economy in the first place. It's absurd the measures of tyranny our government goes to during a crisis, all the while knowing that if people feel good about its actions, whatever actions it takes are legitimate. Unfortunately, pouring gasoline on a fire is not in question, just so long as they are doing SOMETHING.
Lord V the information shows corporate tax cuts compared to individuals getting money into their hands as part of the stimilus . If you are going to have government provide the stimilus this makes sense to me also . For one thing Corporations can spend it in india Vietnam , China , or wherever . The folks getting the money in their pockets here spend it at Walmart , small businesses ,
grocery stores. That stimulates the local economy .
But its not representing the problem actually between the republican and democratic debate going on . Tax cuts targeted at the middle class also will put money into the local economy , also much of the spending the House democrats have written up are on programs that will take next years dollars to keep on going . In other words we are borrowing money to start new programs that will require money next year to keep them funded . Obama wants this to be bi partsian , and the republicans have some good ideas and some honest concerns that the American people have also . I believe the bill will have some bi patsian support put into it . Dollars need to be sent so the people using the food stamps will have an opportunity to get a job and will not have a need for food stamps . Thats when you know the stimilus is working , not for providing food stamps , but seeing the need for them to go down .
Doug I understand your point . The republicans tried to stimulate the economy also . Not sure if it worked . But as President Obama said , he won the election not the republicans . Our money being devalued, inflation , and other posibilities i see happening also because of the hugh amount of money being spent here . The majority of it does not even seem to be going to the economy .
The majority so far coming to my state for instance will be covering up our deficit , it will not creat any jobs , it may save some state jobs and trickle DOWN to the private sector.
But I am hoping my perspective is wrong .
Agreed! Or, for that matter, the morality of deficit spending. Didn't Wallis and Sojourner's talk preach "Budgets are moral documents" a few years ago? Where is that outcry now? We're enslaving our offspring in the name of bailing ourselves out. That's like borrowing money from my kid's college fund to pay on my car payments.
Perhaps as Christians we should consider the boundaries within which we are to operate to promote justice and equality. I wrote about this on my blog: www.liveloud.net Would love to continue the conversation there.
"Both are immoral. Inequality is perpetuated by legislatively balancing the scales to favor either the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:15). " Xfree9
I will agree with you that it applies to our fiscal policy when we face the same set of circumstances and sociological factors that the ancient Hebrews were facing.
Moreover, it appears to apply more readily to court proceedings than tax policy.
Some of my favorite verses from the Bible are in Joshua 10. They help me to have a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when I see civilian casualties in Iraq.
The point is, at some point when God was directing a nation to setup legal policy, treating anybody with favoritism was a perversion of justice. We do not live in the same scenario, but we do need to promote justice, and the principles of justice should be unchanging (at least in my estimation).
It was largely why the word "legislatively" was included in my statement. When following the law, favoring one group is unjust.
Even so, deficit spending is a moral issue, and in my estimation unjust when we place undue burden on future generations in order to bail ourselves out of a situation we put ourselves in.
I am sorry xfree9 but you have added to the Book. See these words, which are very a propos must now apply to you:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Repent before it's too late brother!
Yes, let's force people to do what we feel the Scriptures ask us to
do. That's how we get the kingdom to advance in the world.
I'm familiar with Jubilee only a little. Can't comment on that.
Personally I think as Christians we have the responsibility to be
merciful and forgiving to others and demonstrate that love to the
world. But it does not follow that we force others with threat of
violence to do the same.
If banks forgave some debts of the truly needy, that would be great.
And it would possibly help the economy. But when over 90% foreclosures
are of houses bought by people who could not afford them, I struggle
with the justice in that.
It has nothing to do with whether I like what he said. It's a misuse of the term. You seem to like to equate any government policy you don't like as tyranny, but just because you don't agree with the policy doesn't mean the policy is tyrannical.
If you truly don't like the policies, then do something about it. Write to your representatives, start a grassroots organization to work to get your views known and understood, run for office. Oh, and by the way, in any truly tyrannical government, you wouldn't have the freedom to do any of those things. If you tried, you probably would just disappear without a trace. That's what happened under the rule of truly tyrannical governments such as those run by Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet, and Idi Amin. To equate our government with them is inflammatory.
If our government were truly tyrannical, according to Mirriam-Webster, the president would have absolute power, and last I checked, we live in a Democracy with three equal branches of power, in spite of Bush's efforts to centralize the power within the Executive branch.
I don't consider policies I don't like as tyrannical, I consider policies that diminish the freedoms of anybody and take property from others as tyrannical. The United States government is not tyrannical in the same degree, but it is no less tyrannical in some of its policies.
Fascism is not only tyrannical when it is violent; governments can be tyrannical with good intentions. But an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape is just a nicer form of tyranny.
If one has no choice but to be forced against his own will to do something against his beliefs, that is tyranny. Plain and simple. Is it complete and total tyranny? No. But it is tyranny nonetheless.
If that is your definition, then there is no such thing as a government that is not tyrannical. Say I wanted to have the freedom to write grafitti on my neighbor's house. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to do that. So it would be against my will to not write grafitti on my neighbors house. But what if I really want to deface their house? Is it not tyranny that the government doesn't allow me to do that?
What if, for example, I decided that I don't particularly like my tax dollars going to fight an unjust war? Yet, I don't have the freedom to dictate where my tax dollars go, do I? Meanwhile, a person who supports the war won't consider it tyranny at all, will they?
We all give our property to the government. You can't pick and choose which uses of that property are tyrannical and which are not.
You make my point precisely. Thanks!
Government should defend the natural rights of liberty and property. Aggression against your neighbor or his property is a crime that should be punished.
I don't "give" my property to the government. The government takes it by threat of violence against my will. I'd rather stay alive.
I should have offered clarification in the original post but I didn't have time. I can't speak for xfree9 but I adhere to a more traditional, Platonic definition of tyranny. I certainly don't think tyranny is a good thing, but it need not be as oppressive as Stalin et al. In fact, a tyranny could be benevolent (at least in theory). I would also disagree with the notion that tyranny may only function under one ruler with absolute power. I would contend that in the United States, the federal goverment is advancing tyranny and has been for decades. The School House Rock videos taught me that laws are made by Congress, but that is hardly the case. Every day unelected bureaucrats are determining how you and I can live our lives and restricting our property rights and economic freedom. No tryrant has the ability to act alone, they must be supported by a powerful segment of society, even if it is a small one. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that our government is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany, but it certainly isn't on the right road.
The difficulty with these discussions stems, in part, from the fact that we are constantly redefining the world. I'll stand by my comments about fascism. It is a tragedy that history has reduced fascism to the holocaust, because that atrocity could have been committed by people of any political persuasion. I'll admit that fascism is a somewhat loaded term, but what else would you call it? It isn't capitalism or socialism, I know some of the regular posters here will back me up on that. The government is planning our economy, effectively nationalizing some corporations while others are allowed to fail, and picking winners and losers in the market through its taxes and subsidies. And its all done for the good of the country. As I said earlier, this is strikingly similar to Mussolini's Italy.
I'm all for thoughtful dialogue, but honesty must be a key component if it is going to be successful. Perhaps you could tell me why you believe my use of the word fascism is incorrect.
If this is your definition of tyranny;
"If one has no choice but to be forced against his own will to do something against his beliefs"
then anything the government stops you from doing is tyranny. If it is my belief that cutting down trees is wrong, and so I therefore sabbotage lumbering equipment, and the government arrests me for that, then they are forcing me from doing something I really believe in, are they not? Is that, then tyranny?
Your definition of government still involves government acting as tyrants per your definition of tyranny. For if the government prevents us from doing anything we want to, then that is tyranny. But maybe you are arguing that we shouldn't have any government at all.
It may not be your intent to equate the US government as tyrannical on the scale of Nazi Germany, but when you use that term, that is what it sounds like. That is my point--it is an inflammatory term because of how most people understand the term. So if that isn't your intent, then I would suggest finding a better term that is more effective at making your point. Many people stop listening when someone makes extreme statements, and so if you want people to understand your point, choose a term that doesn't conjure up such extreme visions.
It's simple math. if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Therefore, if Hitler = tyranny, and tyranny = the US government, then Hitler = the US government.
As far as fascism, that is once again an extremely emotionally-charged term. It isn't only referring to economic policies. So you are choosing a term and twisting it to mean what you want it to, and assuming people will understand that you aren't referring to the entire definition of the term. Certainly, some of the dictionary definition may fit, but certainly not all of it. And so when you choose a term that has many other connotations, it turns into an extremist term, even if that isn't your intent. If you constantly have to redefine your terms, then maybe your choice of terms isn't a very good one. In language, you need to also consider the emotional connotations behind different words. If you ignore them, then you fail to effectively communicate.
Anyway, I'd also like to point out that it can't be either or with government vs. free market. Many seem to believe that a truly free market would be wonderful and perfect and perfectly balance itself out. And maybe it would if it weren't for human nature.
However, we certainly have seen enough corruption within big business that a totally free market would be extremely damaging--or have you forgotten about Enron, and predatory lenders?
For example, if the market were completely free, there would be no environmental regulations. You then need to trust businesses to do the right thing and not pollute their environment. But they won't. Why? Because in a free market, the only ideal that everyone works for is making as much money as possible, and it is far less expensive to dump your hazardous wastes into the river than it is not to.
We have seen what this country looks like without such environmental regulations, and I guess if you don't mind having rivers spontaneously burst into flame, or having communities experience higher than normal incidents of birth defects and cancer, then i guess we don't need those regulations.
And then the free market becomes tyrannical.
In a perfect world, the State would not need to exist because nobody would violate the life, liberty, or property of anybody else. In other words, we'd treat each other as equals, make decisions based on what suits us but that does not violate that of our neighbors.
Governments can legitimately exist if they exist to protect citizens from harm by another person. When my actions become a violation of others' free will and property, the State has a right to protect the property of another. I cannot harm lumbering equipment because it belongs to somebody else.
It's really very simple, and I think all Christians can agree that it is sinful to aggress another human being for our own purposes. If we wish they do something we desire, we must urge them to do so on their own volition. I cannot force you to give me money, even if it is to go for a cause more noble than that which you are spending your money on.
Ultimately as humans we should interact peacefully. As Christians we should definitely promote the peaceful engagement of individuals. Anything else is tyrannical. Perhaps it is a strong word, but why water down something that is wrong to make it sound legitimate?
"It may not be your intent to equate the US government as tyrannical on the scale of Nazi Germany, but when you use that term, that is what it sounds like."
So because you don't have a complete picture of fascism and tyranny, you wish to associate as you please?
Fascism is ugly, whether in small doses or in large violent doses. The fact remains that fascism means something, and while you may find it emotionally charged, you cannot ignore the meaning and history of the fascist movement. For those of us who wish to use it properly and accurately, please let us, and stand beside us and support the real meaning, not the loaded meaning people want it to believe. Otherwise you negate our real point, which is valid even if it is debatable.
What is amazing to me is that people who talk about the "trickle up" vs. "trickle down" economic theories are missing out on the fact that both end up benefiting one bloc of people instead of everyone equally.
Why do we assume that money should be redistributed by incompetent politicians and given to a group of people (either poor or rich) who are really just voters being bought out?
Essentially the problem is that the State is trying to "stimulate" the economy in the first place. It's absurd the measures of tyranny our government goes to during a crisis, all the while knowing that if people feel good about its actions, whatever actions it takes are legitimate. Unfortunately, pouring gasoline on a fire is not in question, just so long as they are doing SOMETHING.
"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson
Yes--please do use it properly and accurately, for according to the definitions, you are not. You are using only the part of the definition that suits you while ignoring the part that involves totalitarian, violent governments that completely and violently squash individual freedoms.
I don't see much advantage to stubbornly adhering to words that do not adequately convey your true message. It ultimately doesn't matter what you think the words mean. what matters is what your listeners think the words mean. This is basic "Public Speaking 101" here. Choose a different term, or have your message lost on the listener, or reader in this case. I haven't negated your point. You negate it yourself by failing to communicate it well. Don't blame the listener for your failuh to communicate. It's your message. Learn to present it effectively. And if you expect people to be able to filter out Mussolini from the term Fascism, well, what I'm telling you is, it ain't gonna happen.
A free market would more adequately and more ethically support models of environmentalism. If we protect property rights, then harm to the environment is simply an extension of that. By harming the water, the State could legitimately say "you are harming others by your decisions." That is not "unfree" markets, that is the protection of freedom at work! Those who advocate free markets are not against regulation; they are against regulations that tilt the scales in favor of one business over another. Mythically we believe that "big business" is pro- free markets, but most of them are protectionists: they want the government to back them up and protect them from competition. This is anti- free market, and only serves to benefit a few.
Simply stated, a truly free market exists when every individual can exchange a good or service with another individual where there is a mutually beneficial exchange. By that definition, a free market cannot be "tyrannical."
Lord V the information shows corporate tax cuts compared to individuals getting money into their hands as part of the stimilus . If you are going to have government provide the stimilus this makes sense to me also . For one thing Corporations can spend it in india Vietnam , China , or wherever . The folks getting the money in their pockets here spend it at Walmart , small businesses ,
grocery stores. That stimulates the local economy .
But its not representing the problem actually between the republican and democratic debate going on . Tax cuts targeted at the middle class also will put money into the local economy , also much of the spending the House democrats have written up are on programs that will take next years dollars to keep on going . In other words we are borrowing money to start new programs that will require money next year to keep them funded . Obama wants this to be bi partsian , and the republicans have some good ideas and some honest concerns that the American people have also . I believe the bill will have some bi patsian support put into it . Dollars need to be sent so the people using the food stamps will have an opportunity to get a job and will not have a need for food stamps . Thats when you know the stimilus is working , not for providing food stamps , but seeing the need for them to go down .
Doug I understand your point . The republicans tried to stimulate the economy also . Not sure if it worked . But as President Obama said , he won the election not the republicans . Our money being devalued, inflation , and other posibilities i see happening also because of the hugh amount of money being spent here . The majority of it does not even seem to be going to the economy .
The majority so far coming to my state for instance will be covering up our deficit , it will not creat any jobs , it may save some state jobs and trickle DOWN to the private sector.
But I am hoping my perspective is wrong .
Agreed! Or, for that matter, the morality of deficit spending. Didn't Wallis and Sojourner's talk preach "Budgets are moral documents" a few years ago? Where is that outcry now? We're enslaving our offspring in the name of bailing ourselves out. That's like borrowing money from my kid's college fund to pay on my car payments.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
What is amazing to me is that people who talk about the "trickle up" vs. "trickle down" economic theories are missing out on the fact that both end up benefiting one bloc of people instead of everyone equally.
Why do we assume that money should be redistributed by incompetent politicians and given to a group of people (either poor or rich) who are really just voters being bought out?
Essentially the problem is that the State is trying to "stimulate" the economy in the first place. It's absurd the measures of tyranny our government goes to during a crisis, all the while knowing that if people feel good about its actions, whatever actions it takes are legitimate. Unfortunately, pouring gasoline on a fire is not in question, just so long as they are doing SOMETHING.
What is amazing to me is that people who talk about the "trickle up" vs. "trickle down" economic theories are missing out on the fact that both end up benefiting one bloc of people instead of everyone equally.
Why do we assume that money should be redistributed by incompetent politicians and given to a group of people (either poor or rich) who are really just voters being bought out?
Essentially the problem is that the State is trying to "stimulate" the economy in the first place. It's absurd the measures of tyranny our government goes to during a crisis, all the while knowing that if people feel good about its actions, whatever actions it takes are legitimate. Unfortunately, pouring gasoline on a fire is not in question, just so long as they are doing SOMETHING.
Lord V the information shows corporate tax cuts compared to individuals getting money into their hands as part of the stimilus . If you are going to have government provide the stimilus this makes sense to me also . For one thing Corporations can spend it in india Vietnam , China , or wherever . The folks getting the money in their pockets here spend it at Walmart , small businesses ,
grocery stores. That stimulates the local economy .
But its not representing the problem actually between the republican and democratic debate going on . Tax cuts targeted at the middle class also will put money into the local economy , also much of the spending the House democrats have written up are on programs that will take next years dollars to keep on going . In other words we are borrowing money to start new programs that will require money next year to keep them funded . Obama wants this to be bi partsian , and the republicans have some good ideas and some honest concerns that the American people have also . I believe the bill will have some bi patsian support put into it . Dollars need to be sent so the people using the food stamps will have an opportunity to get a job and will not have a need for food stamps . Thats when you know the stimilus is working , not for providing food stamps , but seeing the need for them to go down .
Lord V the information shows corporate tax cuts compared to individuals getting money into their hands as part of the stimilus . If you are going to have government provide the stimilus this makes sense to me also . For one thing Corporations can spend it in india Vietnam , China , or wherever . The folks getting the money in their pockets here spend it at Walmart , small businesses ,
grocery stores. That stimulates the local economy .
But its not representing the problem actually between the republican and democratic debate going on . Tax cuts targeted at the middle class also will put money into the local economy , also much of the spending the House democrats have written up are on programs that will take next years dollars to keep on going . In other words we are borrowing money to start new programs that will require money next year to keep them funded . Obama wants this to be bi partsian , and the republicans have some good ideas and some honest concerns that the American people have also . I believe the bill will have some bi patsian support put into it . Dollars need to be sent so the people using the food stamps will have an opportunity to get a job and will not have a need for food stamps . Thats when you know the stimilus is working , not for providing food stamps , but seeing the need for them to go down .
Doug I understand your point . The republicans tried to stimulate the economy also . Not sure if it worked . But as President Obama said , he won the election not the republicans . Our money being devalued, inflation , and other posibilities i see happening also because of the hugh amount of money being spent here . The majority of it does not even seem to be going to the economy .
The majority so far coming to my state for instance will be covering up our deficit , it will not creat any jobs , it may save some state jobs and trickle DOWN to the private sector.
But I am hoping my perspective is wrong .
Doug I understand your point . The republicans tried to stimulate the economy also . Not sure if it worked . But as President Obama said , he won the election not the republicans . Our money being devalued, inflation , and other posibilities i see happening also because of the hugh amount of money being spent here . The majority of it does not even seem to be going to the economy .
The majority so far coming to my state for instance will be covering up our deficit , it will not creat any jobs , it may save some state jobs and trickle DOWN to the private sector.
But I am hoping my perspective is wrong .
Agreed! Or, for that matter, the morality of deficit spending. Didn't Wallis and Sojourner's talk preach "Budgets are moral documents" a few years ago? Where is that outcry now? We're enslaving our offspring in the name of bailing ourselves out. That's like borrowing money from my kid's college fund to pay on my car payments.
Agreed! Or, for that matter, the morality of deficit spending. Didn't Wallis and Sojourner's talk preach "Budgets are moral documents" a few years ago? Where is that outcry now? We're enslaving our offspring in the name of bailing ourselves out. That's like borrowing money from my kid's college fund to pay on my car payments.
Perhaps as Christians we should consider the boundaries within which we are to operate to promote justice and equality. I wrote about this on my blog: www.liveloud.net Would love to continue the conversation there.
Perhaps as Christians we should consider the boundaries within which we are to operate to promote justice and equality. I wrote about this on my blog: www.liveloud.net Would love to continue the conversation there.
"Both are immoral. Inequality is perpetuated by legislatively balancing the scales to favor either the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:15). " Xfree9
I will agree with you that it applies to our fiscal policy when we face the same set of circumstances and sociological factors that the ancient Hebrews were facing.
Moreover, it appears to apply more readily to court proceedings than tax policy.
Some of my favorite verses from the Bible are in Joshua 10. They help me to have a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when I see civilian casualties in Iraq.
"Both are immoral. Inequality is perpetuated by legislatively balancing the scales to favor either the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:15). " Xfree9
I will agree with you that it applies to our fiscal policy when we face the same set of circumstances and sociological factors that the ancient Hebrews were facing.
Moreover, it appears to apply more readily to court proceedings than tax policy.
Some of my favorite verses from the Bible are in Joshua 10. They help me to have a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when I see civilian casualties in Iraq.
The point is, at some point when God was directing a nation to setup legal policy, treating anybody with favoritism was a perversion of justice. We do not live in the same scenario, but we do need to promote justice, and the principles of justice should be unchanging (at least in my estimation).
It was largely why the word "legislatively" was included in my statement. When following the law, favoring one group is unjust.
Even so, deficit spending is a moral issue, and in my estimation unjust when we place undue burden on future generations in order to bail ourselves out of a situation we put ourselves in.
The point is, at some point when God was directing a nation to setup legal policy, treating anybody with favoritism was a perversion of justice. We do not live in the same scenario, but we do need to promote justice, and the principles of justice should be unchanging (at least in my estimation).
It was largely why the word "legislatively" was included in my statement. When following the law, favoring one group is unjust.
Even so, deficit spending is a moral issue, and in my estimation unjust when we place undue burden on future generations in order to bail ourselves out of a situation we put ourselves in.
I am sorry xfree9 but you have added to the Book. See these words, which are very a propos must now apply to you:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Repent before it's too late brother!
I am sorry xfree9 but you have added to the Book. See these words, which are very a propos must now apply to you:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Repent before it's too late brother!
Yes, let's force people to do what we feel the Scriptures ask us to
do. That's how we get the kingdom to advance in the world.
I'm familiar with Jubilee only a little. Can't comment on that.
Personally I think as Christians we have the responsibility to be
merciful and forgiving to others and demonstrate that love to the
world. But it does not follow that we force others with threat of
violence to do the same.
If banks forgave some debts of the truly needy, that would be great.
And it would possibly help the economy. But when over 90% foreclosures
are of houses bought by people who could not afford them, I struggle
with the justice in that.
Yes, let's force people to do what we feel the Scriptures ask us to
do. That's how we get the kingdom to advance in the world.
I'm familiar with Jubilee only a little. Can't comment on that.
Personally I think as Christians we have the responsibility to be
merciful and forgiving to others and demonstrate that love to the
world. But it does not follow that we force others with threat of
violence to do the same.
If banks forgave some debts of the truly needy, that would be great.
And it would possibly help the economy. But when over 90% foreclosures
are of houses bought by people who could not afford them, I struggle
with the justice in that.
It has nothing to do with whether I like what he said. It's a misuse of the term. You seem to like to equate any government policy you don't like as tyranny, but just because you don't agree with the policy doesn't mean the policy is tyrannical.
If you truly don't like the policies, then do something about it. Write to your representatives, start a grassroots organization to work to get your views known and understood, run for office. Oh, and by the way, in any truly tyrannical government, you wouldn't have the freedom to do any of those things. If you tried, you probably would just disappear without a trace. That's what happened under the rule of truly tyrannical governments such as those run by Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet, and Idi Amin. To equate our government with them is inflammatory.
If our government were truly tyrannical, according to Mirriam-Webster, the president would have absolute power, and last I checked, we live in a Democracy with three equal branches of power, in spite of Bush's efforts to centralize the power within the Executive branch.
It has nothing to do with whether I like what he said. It's a misuse of the term. You seem to like to equate any government policy you don't like as tyranny, but just because you don't agree with the policy doesn't mean the policy is tyrannical.
If you truly don't like the policies, then do something about it. Write to your representatives, start a grassroots organization to work to get your views known and understood, run for office. Oh, and by the way, in any truly tyrannical government, you wouldn't have the freedom to do any of those things. If you tried, you probably would just disappear without a trace. That's what happened under the rule of truly tyrannical governments such as those run by Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet, and Idi Amin. To equate our government with them is inflammatory.
If our government were truly tyrannical, according to Mirriam-Webster, the president would have absolute power, and last I checked, we live in a Democracy with three equal branches of power, in spite of Bush's efforts to centralize the power within the Executive branch.
I don't consider policies I don't like as tyrannical, I consider policies that diminish the freedoms of anybody and take property from others as tyrannical. The United States government is not tyrannical in the same degree, but it is no less tyrannical in some of its policies.
Fascism is not only tyrannical when it is violent; governments can be tyrannical with good intentions. But an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape is just a nicer form of tyranny.
If one has no choice but to be forced against his own will to do something against his beliefs, that is tyranny. Plain and simple. Is it complete and total tyranny? No. But it is tyranny nonetheless.
I don't consider policies I don't like as tyrannical, I consider policies that diminish the freedoms of anybody and take property from others as tyrannical. The United States government is not tyrannical in the same degree, but it is no less tyrannical in some of its policies.
Fascism is not only tyrannical when it is violent; governments can be tyrannical with good intentions. But an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape is just a nicer form of tyranny.
If one has no choice but to be forced against his own will to do something against his beliefs, that is tyranny. Plain and simple. Is it complete and total tyranny? No. But it is tyranny nonetheless.
If that is your definition, then there is no such thing as a government that is not tyrannical. Say I wanted to have the freedom to write grafitti on my neighbor's house. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to do that. So it would be against my will to not write grafitti on my neighbors house. But what if I really want to deface their house? Is it not tyranny that the government doesn't allow me to do that?
What if, for example, I decided that I don't particularly like my tax dollars going to fight an unjust war? Yet, I don't have the freedom to dictate where my tax dollars go, do I? Meanwhile, a person who supports the war won't consider it tyranny at all, will they?
We all give our property to the government. You can't pick and choose which uses of that property are tyrannical and which are not.
If that is your definition, then there is no such thing as a government that is not tyrannical. Say I wanted to have the freedom to write grafitti on my neighbor's house. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to do that. So it would be against my will to not write grafitti on my neighbors house. But what if I really want to deface their house? Is it not tyranny that the government doesn't allow me to do that?
What if, for example, I decided that I don't particularly like my tax dollars going to fight an unjust war? Yet, I don't have the freedom to dictate where my tax dollars go, do I? Meanwhile, a person who supports the war won't consider it tyranny at all, will they?
We all give our property to the government. You can't pick and choose which uses of that property are tyrannical and which are not.
You make my point precisely. Thanks!
Government should defend the natural rights of liberty and property. Aggression against your neighbor or his property is a crime that should be punished.
I don't "give" my property to the government. The government takes it by threat of violence against my will. I'd rather stay alive.
You make my point precisely. Thanks!
Government should defend the natural rights of liberty and property. Aggression against your neighbor or his property is a crime that should be punished.
I don't "give" my property to the government. The government takes it by threat of violence against my will. I'd rather stay alive.
