Well Jesus would seem to say IMHO that you should not be considered a good Christian if you don't help the poor. American society and its Christian majority have failed greatly at this. This is due in large part to a sect of Christianity that has arisen in the last 30 to 40 years and is controlled in its voting patterns by such politico-preachers as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the sometimes presidential candidate. This particular type of Christianity has actively fought to take help for the poor by voting for politicians who have tried to defund the welfare state. A person is responsible for their actions, including being a citizen. When you have a society like ours that is atrocious compared to other modern societies in how it treats the lower 20% "You are held responsible for your own actions, not your justifications or intentions." Jesus was not against paying taxes, though in the conservative Bible as being rewritten I suppose that can be changed.
I'm not making an argument about whether unregulated or regulated markets is more efficient or even good but an argument regarding freedom. Now I don't think a completely free society, where people can do whatever they want whenever they want, in terms of either moral or financial freedom is a good thing in the end societal restraints are necessary. My point is that to say that the Right doesn't value complete freedom in a moral sense is similar to saying that the Left doesn't value complete freedom in the financial sense. In the end boths sides aren't for total freedom they just happen to emphasize different areas.
But at the same time the Left often looks to impose a control on the market because they are distrustful of unfettered financial freedom and the belief that it is possible for individuals to act rationally in a free market.
The "Religious Right" is the liberal's Boogie Man. It is partly real and partly made up. I agree that faith and religious practice tends to make one at least more morally conservative, more traditional in social values. However, it doesn't make you suddenly want to support greedy corporations (and not all are) who exploit workers any more than it makes you support greedy employees (and not all are) who exploit their employers. I am a recovering liberal who has become more conservative through the years. I am not even close to being a Republican, but I disagree with my Democrat friends on many issues like excessive "spending," abortion, and civil liberties for terrorists. I am strong on environmental issues, but not "wacky" on them. I want free enterprise to flourish, but I am very suspicious of multinational corporations. In sum, religious people like me are spread all over the political spectrum. I do think that the far Left is extremely secular and wants to drive religion off the face of the earth. They won't succeed. Neither will the "Religious Right" succeed in making contemporary America religious.
And what is wrong with this skepticism? Where in the history of the world has it been that an unregulated free market led to everyone acting reasonably and rationally and ensuing perennial great success? Human beings are greedy. They lie, cheat and steal. It is their nature, and they will do it as long as the possibility is there that they won't be held accountable for it. Whether capitalism or socialism, economic theories always seem great on paper long as we assume that all scales are properly balanced and market participants will be rational and logical. The truth of the matter is that there will always be unbalanced scales, and if the scales are balanced, eventually someone is going to find a way to make them unbalanced as long as they don't get caught.
Extremists that make the rest look bad. Every social group seems to have them in one form or another. Stereotypes exist for a reason, but simply matching a stereotypical profile does not mean the person in question is the same as the stereotype. And I think the extreme left and right are doing more to harm the gist of their cause by their extremist actions and intolerances.
Quoted for truth, good post. The idea of charity and community service as being involuntary servitude is laughable. Obviously in a perfect world we would all do our part and no one would go hungry due to our excessive generosity and love for our fellow man. For those who think the government should stay out of promoting community service should they aso repeal the charitable deduction? Seems to me this is another case of the government getting involved and using my tax dollars to fund welfare queens.
The problem, basso, is that these are beliefs that are counter to glynch's. Therefore, he thinks that we need to strive to "understand" where this supposed "defect" comes from. Perhaps he really wants to understand differing views, but the manner in which it is presented in the article he posted smacks of arrogance.
The more I read your posts, the more I believe that you are actually a borderline anarchist. If you really hate any meaningful government, you should move to an island somewhere. Anything that government does, even properly according to the Constitution, you view as being statist or socialist. I am beginning to think that you simply do not belong in a well ordered society.
Really? Is it? Is it really so awful to expose kids to the way that those less fortunate live through a little community service? Yet, in your world, it is ok to take that same kid and tell them they cannot have surgery because they cannot pay for it in cash. You are a very odd person.
Ah, idealism. whee ...But seriously, of all the examples out there, you post mandatory community service for teenagers as a tool of oppression? o_o mind-boggling. If your integrity gets insulted by the fact that the state "steals" charity from you...I gotta say, that's just being petty.
much the way the left says don't legislate your morality on us the right says don't force your community service on us. we'll do it if we want to, not because we'll get fined by the government if we don't.
But the socialist/liberal forced morality is the good kind, of course. Now go serve, or else. And there is a city curfew in effect, so be home by 10.
See the difference between the two... Open homosexuals being denied the right to proudly serve their nation. mar1juana users being jailed. Teens being jailed for statutory rape, even though they are consenting and of reasonable ages between each other. and being "forced" to do something like 24 hours of community service...is so laughable that the example itself is almost ludicrious. I mean, I kinda agree with the idea in general, the gouvernment should not be mandating individual's lives, but the example here is just...bad and denigrates whatever arguments you'll put up.
