God...Selfless or Selfish

124

Comments

  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    phobicsquirrel:
    JDH:
    Gray4lines:
    JDH:
    "...Finally, I understand where you are coming from with not injecting religion into politics and forcing it upon others. Please understand me when I say.... that is really hard. My beliefs and religion are an integral part of who I am... and in some cases the options are almost either/or dilemas. If I don't vote for what I believe through God's word...many times you would be asking me to vote against my morals. As Marker said, it ends in an impasse as what is a justifiable rationale for me doesn't fit others criteria. And it is frustrating for both sides.

    Finally, something to think about, can anyone say honestly that every belief they hold and everything that is important to them has been arrived at purely through science and reason? ..."

    What truly puzzles me is when Christians vote to support social darwinist economic theory (Ayn Rand, Milton Freidman, Laffer, supply-side economists who exhault the rich, and punish and poor). The Ryan Budget and supply side economic theory is in complete diametric opposition to Christian teachings, yet conservative Christians in the US tend to exhault the wealthiest among us, including the theives on Wall St, while turning what I believe is a blind eye to the least among us.

    I don't get it. My economic viewpoint is rooted in basic Christianity, but I find myself consistently opposed to American Christians on economic issues because it seems to me that they are not voting as Christians, but rather as Conservatives.
    I fundamentally disagree with this view. I believe a strong argument can be made for Christian Objectivism (Ayn Rands philosophy) and that individualism and capitalism are the only political-economic system that fit in with Christianity. I am very much a Christian, and very much a fan of Milton Friedman, and very much an economist. Capitalism doesn't say you have to be rich, or shun the poor. it just says equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. I think, very contradictory to your statement, individualistic capitalism leaves room for you the individual to take your property and charitably give how you see fit. Its about choice. When the govt makes that choice for you, is that more moral? I believe that capitalism is a perfect fit with Christianity and that socialism in any form is at odds.

    check out The 5000 Year Leap.
    Ayn Rand was an atheist, a Social Darwinist, and her economic philosophy is best summed up by Herbert Spencer, (from whom she drew much inspiration) when he said "When the poor die, society is benefited." Supply side economics is based on the lie that if you make life really good for the wealthiest, there will be enough crumbs falling off their tables that everybody else can have a decent life. It aint happening, because human beings are greedy, and the accumulations of vast sums of wealth corrupts human beings. Jesus warned us about this time and time and time again.

    I will be happy to have this discussion at a later date, but I have no time for it today.
    Ayn Rand was so hypocritical. Died with govt handouts and everything There is a reason why the founding fathers of this country separated church and state. Something that seems to have been blurred and even ignored these days for some people and elected officials. As Bachmann said, Gold told me to run! WTF?
    The term "Separation of Church and State" is from the Federalist Papers not the constitution or any law in the United States, yet every one tosses it around like it is the law of the land! Is it simply to further your argument or do people really not understand the context in which it was used?
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  • TheedgeTheedge Posts: 316
    Its interesting that some folks (I'm not saying anyone here) would use the 1st amendment, a document that guarantees all of us (including elected officials) freedom of speech, to suggest that we can't all express our religious beliefs. There is no law prohibiting politicians from expressing their faith as loudly as they like. They can even make decisions based solely on their faith.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 ✭✭✭✭ Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    Theedge:
    Its interesting that some folks (I'm not saying anyone here) would use the 1st amendment, a document that guarantees all of us (including elected officials) freedom of speech, to suggest that we can't all express our religious beliefs. There is no law prohibiting politicians from expressing their faith as loudly as they like. They can even make decisions based solely on their faith.
    agreed.
    this is balanced out by the fact that if we want to we can vote them out for doing just that.

  • TheedgeTheedge Posts: 316
    kuzi16:
    Theedge:
    Its interesting that some folks (I'm not saying anyone here) would use the 1st amendment, a document that guarantees all of us (including elected officials) freedom of speech, to suggest that we can't all express our religious beliefs. There is no law prohibiting politicians from expressing their faith as loudly as they like. They can even make decisions based solely on their faith.
    agreed.
    this is balanced out by the fact that if we want to we can vote them out for doing just that.

    We could tell em the devil told us to.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat ✭✭✭✭✭ West TNPosts: 4,708 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wow, I'm impressed with the caliber of response here. Not necessarily surprised, but impressed. I'm not sure how much I'd be able to add to this. Much of what I think, feel, believe, and intended to say has been expressed already, and I don't want to be redundant.

    A few quick thoughts:
    My early anger at God, and much of what drives people away from God, seems to come from a couple different places. Lack of understanding, and people-driven distortions of what has been given to us to try to comprehend.
    Lack of understanding makes sense, we're to put things together from many pieces of an overwhelming puzzle. It takes work to make the opaque become clear, and, even at our best we will still only see "as through a glass, darkly". We don't have the experience or perhaps even the capacity, at our level, to fully understand. I think it would be somewhat like trying to teach my dog to balance the checkbook. He understands that I go to the store, come back with stuff, but by his nature must believe that I just know how to find stuff.

    So, at various times, I believe that God has gone to great lengths to reach and teach us. Here is where things get tricky, because while whatever prophet he communicates with may have a better understanding than the rest of us, no matter how clear the message is, the next thing that happens is that the people in power either quash the message, and the messenger, or they adopt and pervert the message to maintain their own wealth and power.

    This leaves the believer, or would-be believer, much on his own. (BTW, I learned the old-school way that the masculine is the acceptable form when generalizing, it is inclusive of both genders) We must sort the truth out of all the pieces of the puzzle.

    Another problem is that when an individual begins to understand, say through Christianity, and begins to feel the truth behind the words, he suddenly gets the notion that he truly understands the whole of the truth, and that the path that got him there is the only path, for everyone. This is not possible, for a couple reasons, the most important of which, I believe, is that we don't have the capacity to understand the whole of the truth.

    Therefore, while I believe, say that the King James Version of the Bible is indeed the truth, I cannot accept it when I see a bumper-sticker that proclaims: "The King James Bible is THE Word of God". I swear, I think some of these folks think that KJV is the book Jesus carried to Sunday School, despite the obvious impossibilities. I mean, really? This English translation of the German translation of the Latin translation of the Greek translations of the original is the ONLY one that counts? C'mon!

    An open minded study of religious history reveals that over and over we are given the pure metal of the truth, and quickly fashion it into a weapon to subdue our competitors and beat the masses into submission. It's happened with Jaweh, buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and apparently is deep in our DNA.

    Well, that's all for now. I'm thinking of posting a list of books that have helped me understand better, but maybe should do that on the Books thread.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  
  • VulchorVulchor ✭✭✭ FloridaPosts: 4,768 ✭✭✭
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
    I understand the sentiment of this, just not sure how this would be handled. Do you suggest those with strong religious convictions should not be allowed to run for office? Or should they run, but abstain from votes on which they have a strong religious viewpoint? The hard part for me in all of this how "Freedom of" keeps veering towards "Freedom from". ...I need coffee, will try to make more sense later.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    jthanatos:
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
    I understand the sentiment of this, just not sure how this would be handled. Do you suggest those with strong religious convictions should not be allowed to run for office? Or should they run, but abstain from votes on which they have a strong religious viewpoint? The hard part for me in all of this how "Freedom of" keeps veering towards "Freedom from". ...I need coffee, will try to make more sense later.
    If all else is even, I vote for the God fearing man as opposed to the Godless man.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
    I understand the sentiment of this, just not sure how this would be handled. Do you suggest those with strong religious convictions should not be allowed to run for office? Or should they run, but abstain from votes on which they have a strong religious viewpoint? The hard part for me in all of this how "Freedom of" keeps veering towards "Freedom from". ...I need coffee, will try to make more sense later.
    webmost posted this on another thread, but it is approproiate here as well, I think.

    webmost: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

    -Barry Goldwater
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
    I understand the sentiment of this, just not sure how this would be handled. Do you suggest those with strong religious convictions should not be allowed to run for office? Or should they run, but abstain from votes on which they have a strong religious viewpoint? The hard part for me in all of this how "Freedom of" keeps veering towards "Freedom from". ...I need coffee, will try to make more sense later.
    webmost posted this on another thread, but it is approproiate here as well, I think.

    webmost: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

    -Barry Goldwater
    I agree, Churches should stay out of politics as much as possible. Any Christian church that uses the pulpit to tell you who to vote for instead of preaching the Word is a cause for concern. However, where do we draw that line? I can't say that none of my voting is influenced by my beliefs as a Christian. I guess my point of view is everyone should be free to vote as they choose, but protections must be matained to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
    I understand the sentiment of this, just not sure how this would be handled. Do you suggest those with strong religious convictions should not be allowed to run for office? Or should they run, but abstain from votes on which they have a strong religious viewpoint? The hard part for me in all of this how "Freedom of" keeps veering towards "Freedom from". ...I need coffee, will try to make more sense later.
    webmost posted this on another thread, but it is approproiate here as well, I think.

    webmost: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

    -Barry Goldwater
    I agree, Churches should stay out of politics as much as possible. Any Christian church that uses the pulpit to tell you who to vote for instead of preaching the Word is a cause for concern. However, where do we draw that line? I can't say that none of my voting is influenced by my beliefs as a Christian. I guess my point of view is everyone should be free to vote as they choose, but protections must be matained to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
    "...Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. ..."

    Does that sound familiar? Nearly all of the Republicans elected in 2010 do not compromise, and most of them consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians. Like Goldwater said; governing demands compromise. Without it there can be no consensus, and our form of government will not function. This Congress has the worst approval rating ever, and it is precisely that unwillingness to compromise that is to blame.
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
    I understand the sentiment of this, just not sure how this would be handled. Do you suggest those with strong religious convictions should not be allowed to run for office? Or should they run, but abstain from votes on which they have a strong religious viewpoint? The hard part for me in all of this how "Freedom of" keeps veering towards "Freedom from". ...I need coffee, will try to make more sense later.
    webmost posted this on another thread, but it is approproiate here as well, I think.

    webmost: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

    -Barry Goldwater
    I agree, Churches should stay out of politics as much as possible. Any Christian church that uses the pulpit to tell you who to vote for instead of preaching the Word is a cause for concern. However, where do we draw that line? I can't say that none of my voting is influenced by my beliefs as a Christian. I guess my point of view is everyone should be free to vote as they choose, but protections must be matained to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
    "...Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. ..."

    Does that sound familiar? Nearly all of the Republicans elected in 2010 do not compromise, and most of them consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians. Like goldwater said; governing demands compromise. Without it there can be no consensus, and our form of government will not function. This Congress has the worst approval rating ever, and it is precisely that unwillingness to compromise that is to blame.
    I agree to a point. There are some things that just should not be compromised, but this is getting crazy. I think the main issue is the density of the bills being submitted make compromise from either side difficult. When every proposal has 50 riders that defund this, or add this wording to that, or create/remove X unrelated item, it turns a bill that would otherwise be easily passed into a cluster. Both sides do it, and it pisses me off. Especially when they both know what will happen, and use it merely to "score points" by saying the other side is holding up the passage of important legislation.

    Also, I will vote against any politician that refuses to communicate with the other side. It is one thing to listen to your opponent's argument and find it unpersuasive, it is another to misrepresent what they are saying, or stick your fingers in your ears.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.
    I understand the sentiment of this, just not sure how this would be handled. Do you suggest those with strong religious convictions should not be allowed to run for office? Or should they run, but abstain from votes on which they have a strong religious viewpoint? The hard part for me in all of this how "Freedom of" keeps veering towards "Freedom from". ...I need coffee, will try to make more sense later.
    webmost posted this on another thread, but it is approproiate here as well, I think.

    webmost: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

    -Barry Goldwater
    I agree, Churches should stay out of politics as much as possible. Any Christian church that uses the pulpit to tell you who to vote for instead of preaching the Word is a cause for concern. However, where do we draw that line? I can't say that none of my voting is influenced by my beliefs as a Christian. I guess my point of view is everyone should be free to vote as they choose, but protections must be matained to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
    "...Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. ..."

    Does that sound familiar? Nearly all of the Republicans elected in 2010 do not compromise, and most of them consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians. Like goldwater said; governing demands compromise. Without it there can be no consensus, and our form of government will not function. This Congress has the worst approval rating ever, and it is precisely that unwillingness to compromise that is to blame.
    I agree to a point. There are some things that just should not be compromised, but this is getting crazy. I think the main issue is the density of the bills being submitted make compromise from either side difficult. When every proposal has 50 riders that defund this, or add this wording to that, or create/remove X unrelated item, it turns a bill that would otherwise be easily passed into a cluster. Both sides do it, and it pisses me off. Especially when they both know what will happen, and use it merely to "score points" by saying the other side is holding up the passage of important legislation.

    Also, I will vote against any politician that refuses to communicate with the other side. It is one thing to listen to your opponent's argument and find it unpersuasive, it is another to misrepresent what they are saying, or stick your fingers in your ears.
    I'm not sure who you will be able to vote for then, because the middle (moderates in both parties, but especially the R's who could compromise) has just vanished - they just aren't there anymore. We are all worse off because ideology and theology is replacing what we used to call governing.
  • VulchorVulchor ✭✭✭ FloridaPosts: 4,768 ✭✭✭
    I agree totally JDH. All the moderates either lose their election to a well funded hard liner, or say screw it and leave like Olympia Snow.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat ✭✭✭✭✭ West TNPosts: 4,708 ✭✭✭✭✭
    An interesting book on the influence of religion in politics is American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    You are right JDH, in most races I end up voting for Snoopy or Superman because I cannot in good conscience vote for any of actual candidates. Doesn't mean I don't hold out hope.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    You are right JDH, in most races I end up voting for Snoopy or Superman because I cannot in good conscience vote for any of actual candidates. Doesn't mean I don't hold out hope.
    The biggest problem with this uncompromising Congress, as I see it, is that the last time ideology and theology replaced reason, and compromise became impossible because both sides saw each other as being "evil" it was over slavery in the 1850's, & 60's, and we all know what happened then. All this talk of taking up arms against the "evil government" makes me really nervous.
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    You are right JDH, in most races I end up voting for Snoopy or Superman because I cannot in good conscience vote for any of actual candidates. Doesn't mean I don't hold out hope.
    The biggest problem with this uncompromising Congress, as I see it, is that the last time ideology and theology replaced reason, and compromise became impossible because both sides saw each other as being "evil" it was over slavery in the 1850's, & 60's, and we all know what happened then. All this talk of taking up arms against the "evil government" makes me really nervous.
    Again, I agree to a point... and it is scary to think about. But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? I just hope our past teaches us and we can have "throw the bums out" electoral form of revolution instead of the armed resistance kind.
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    Also, to be very very clear... I am against starting any armed anything against our government.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    You are right JDH, in most races I end up voting for Snoopy or Superman because I cannot in good conscience vote for any of actual candidates. Doesn't mean I don't hold out hope.
    The biggest problem with this uncompromising Congress, as I see it, is that the last time ideology and theology replaced reason, and compromise became impossible because both sides saw each other as being "evil" it was over slavery in the 1850's, & 60's, and we all know what happened then. All this talk of taking up arms against the "evil government" makes me really nervous.
    Again, I agree to a point... and it is scary to think about. But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? I just hope our past teaches us and we can have "throw the bums out" electoral form of revolution instead of the armed resistance kind.
    I guess it all depends on who "the bums" are, doesn't it. I don't see a resurgence of moderation in this election, that's for sure.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    "...But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? ..."

    I'm not sure when or what you're refering to; 1860's or now.
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    JDH:
    "...But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? ..."

    I'm not sure when or what you're refering to; 1860's or now.
    1860s ... Mostly just to say compromise isn't always an option.

    Also, by "the bums" I mean everyone, current or former, involved in government. Don't care if they are R's, D's, or I's... get rid of them.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    "...But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? ..."

    I'm not sure when or what you're refering to; 1860's or now.
    1860s ... Mostly just to say compromise isn't always an option.

    Also, by "the bums" I mean everyone, current or former, involved in government. Don't care if they are R's, D's, or I's... get rid of them.
    Most respected historians of our Civil War agree that it was a failure of Congress to compromise, - to find a way to solve the problem that caused the war. That failure was caused by uncompromising elected representatives entrenched in States Rights ideoplgy, and abolishionist theology which prevented any compromise. Reason and the willingness to find a pragmatic compromise became impossible.

    Sound famaliar?
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    "...But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? ..."

    I'm not sure when or what you're refering to; 1860's or now.
    1860s ... Mostly just to say compromise isn't always an option.

    Also, by "the bums" I mean everyone, current or former, involved in government. Don't care if they are R's, D's, or I's... get rid of them.
    Most respected historians of our Civil War agree that it was a failure of Congress to compromise, - to find a way to solve the problem that caused the war. That failure was caused by uncompromising elected representatives entrenched in States Rights ideoplgy, and abolishionist theology which prevented any compromise. Reason and the willingness to find a pragmatic compromise became impossible.

    Sound famaliar?
    Again, I ask... what is would have been a reasonable compromise? I will preface this with my American Political History knowledge is limited to high school and one college course, but can every value be open to compromise? Should they be?
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    "...But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? ..."

    I'm not sure when or what you're refering to; 1860's or now.
    1860s ... Mostly just to say compromise isn't always an option.

    Also, by "the bums" I mean everyone, current or former, involved in government. Don't care if they are R's, D's, or I's... get rid of them.
    Most respected historians of our Civil War agree that it was a failure of Congress to compromise, - to find a way to solve the problem that caused the war. That failure was caused by uncompromising elected representatives entrenched in States Rights ideoplgy, and abolishionist theology which prevented any compromise. Reason and the willingness to find a pragmatic compromise became impossible.

    Sound famaliar?
    Again, I ask... what is would have been a reasonable compromise? I will preface this with my American Political History knowledge is limited to high school and one college course, but can every value be open to compromise? Should they be?
    It is one thing for selected members to vote their consciences on selected issues. It is quite another when an entire Party decides that there will be no compromise with the other party on any issues at all because there is no "common ground". That was the situation in the 1860's and that's where we are now.

    For example, aside from the moral issue of slavery, one of the overwhelming economic problems of slavery was the debt owed by southern slave owners. At that time, there were no large banks in the South, so nearly all of the debt was held in New York and Pennsylvania and Massachuchets banks - and that's where the Abolitionists were the strongest. One "compromise" that was presented in Congress was to levy a general tax for the purpose of buying out the slave owners, thus ridding the slave owners of their debt. the Abolitionists took an uncompromising "no new taxes" stand, and the slave owners just dug in their heels deeper. The unwillingness to compromise just drove everyone into diametricaly opposing corners. The slave owners felt threatended by Northern banks and Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists wanted an immediate end to slavery, but they weren't willing to soften the economic impact on the South in order to get it done.

    Both sides just got madder and madder at each other until there was no turning back. Kind of like now.
  • jthanatosjthanatos ✭✭ Posts: 1,570 ✭✭
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    "...But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? ..."

    I'm not sure when or what you're refering to; 1860's or now.
    1860s ... Mostly just to say compromise isn't always an option.

    Also, by "the bums" I mean everyone, current or former, involved in government. Don't care if they are R's, D's, or I's... get rid of them.
    Most respected historians of our Civil War agree that it was a failure of Congress to compromise, - to find a way to solve the problem that caused the war. That failure was caused by uncompromising elected representatives entrenched in States Rights ideoplgy, and abolishionist theology which prevented any compromise. Reason and the willingness to find a pragmatic compromise became impossible.

    Sound famaliar?
    Again, I ask... what is would have been a reasonable compromise? I will preface this with my American Political History knowledge is limited to high school and one college course, but can every value be open to compromise? Should they be?
    It is one thing for selected members to vote their consciences on selected issues. It is quite another when an entire Party decides that there will be no compromise with the other party on any issues at all because there is no "common ground". That was the situation in the 1860's and that's where we are now.

    For example, aside from the moral issue of slavery, one of the overwhelming economic problems of slavery was the debt owed by southern slave owners. At that time, there were no large banks in the South, so nearly all of the debt was held in New York and Pennsylvania and Massachuchets banks - and that's where the Abolitionists were the strongest. One "compromise" that was presented in Congress was to levy a general tax for the purpose of buying out the slave owners, thus ridding the slave owners of their debt. the Abolitionists took an uncompromising "no new taxes" stand, and the slave owners just dug in their heels deeper. The unwillingness to compromise just drove everyone into diametricaly opposing corners. The slave owners felt threatended by Northern banks and Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists wanted an immediate end to slavery, but they weren't willing to soften the economic impact on the South in order to get it done.

    Both sides just got madder and madder at each other until there was no turning back. Kind of like now.
    Interesting. I was aware of some of the economic implications, but was under the impression the taxation issue was driven more by constituency than ideology. Learn something new everyday. Stand by my initial statement though, throw the bums out, and stop letting bills have unrelated (or convultedly related) items stacked on them. Force the argument to be on the issues at hand, not on other tag-a-longs.

    Man, why does every discussion of God get pulled back to politics? I don't like politics. Humbug.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    "...But using your example, what workable compromise could have been reached? ..."

    I'm not sure when or what you're refering to; 1860's or now.
    1860s ... Mostly just to say compromise isn't always an option.

    Also, by "the bums" I mean everyone, current or former, involved in government. Don't care if they are R's, D's, or I's... get rid of them.
    Most respected historians of our Civil War agree that it was a failure of Congress to compromise, - to find a way to solve the problem that caused the war. That failure was caused by uncompromising elected representatives entrenched in States Rights ideoplgy, and abolishionist theology which prevented any compromise. Reason and the willingness to find a pragmatic compromise became impossible.

    Sound famaliar?
    Again, I ask... what is would have been a reasonable compromise? I will preface this with my American Political History knowledge is limited to high school and one college course, but can every value be open to compromise? Should they be?
    It is one thing for selected members to vote their consciences on selected issues. It is quite another when an entire Party decides that there will be no compromise with the other party on any issues at all because there is no "common ground". That was the situation in the 1860's and that's where we are now.

    For example, aside from the moral issue of slavery, one of the overwhelming economic problems of slavery was the debt owed by southern slave owners. At that time, there were no large banks in the South, so nearly all of the debt was held in New York and Pennsylvania and Massachuchets banks - and that's where the Abolitionists were the strongest. One "compromise" that was presented in Congress was to levy a general tax for the purpose of buying out the slave owners, thus ridding the slave owners of their debt. the Abolitionists took an uncompromising "no new taxes" stand, and the slave owners just dug in their heels deeper. The unwillingness to compromise just drove everyone into diametricaly opposing corners. The slave owners felt threatended by Northern banks and Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists wanted an immediate end to slavery, but they weren't willing to soften the economic impact on the South in order to get it done.

    Both sides just got madder and madder at each other until there was no turning back. Kind of like now.
    Interesting. I was aware of some of the economic implications, but was under the impression the taxation issue was driven more by constituency than ideology. Learn something new everyday. Stand by my initial statement though, throw the bums out, and stop letting bills have unrelated (or convultedly related) items stacked on them. Force the argument to be on the issues at hand, not on other tag-a-longs.

    Man, why does every discussion of God get pulled back to politics? I don't like politics. Humbug.
    If it's any consolation, Jesus couldn't avoid it either.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    The only group of people who Jesus ever said bothered him were the Scribes and the Pharisees

    from Mathew - Jesus said that the *Pharisees taught many good things. They taught God's law. But the important thing was to obey it. Jesus called the *Pharisees ‘graves that men have painted white’. They looked good and holy on the outside. In fact, their lives were selfish and greedy. They showed this by the way that they behaved with Jesus. They wanted people to praise them. They wanted to have the best seats at meetings. ‘Do the things that they teach’, Jesus said, ‘But do not do the things that they do’.
  • TheedgeTheedge Posts: 316
    Vulchor:
    Feel free to list them here Amos, and thanks for the thoughtful opinion man.

    Edge, you are correct they are free to do this as indivduals. However, it gets tricky for me when they are running for political office and thus become an extension of the very govt. which should be separted (or at least under no influence) of religion directly. I suppose not voting them, as Kuzi suggested, is an answer-----just not sure if I think it is that simple.


    Again, there is no law stating that politicians can't use their religious beliefs as some sort of compass in their decision making. I really think people are trying to draw some sort of line in the sand, that simply isn't there. I do get annoyed by some of the rhetoric, but as long as they aren't starting up a church and suggesting that we all have to belong to it or else, they're well with in their rights.
Sign In or Register to comment.