Is The Conservative Movment Flirting with FAscism?

And what time has there been when Americans haven't wanted to destroy terror?

You're mistaking means with ends.

 

Jesus opposed hypocrites.
Jesus shared alot of his time with sinners teaching them.
Jesus had no political or government social agenda, He came to explain God's will to individual's who would believe in Him.
Jesus took personal responsibility to feed the poor and gave no mandate to make 'love' and 'compassion' a government program.
If Jesus wanted to work with the government to establish anything it slipped His mind.

All the good that Jesus taught and did, Christians should do the same regardless of what the government policies are.

In fact if Jesus had thought that the government was the answer I am sure He would have taken over the government and made himself King.

But, this was not His Kingdom. His Kingdom is in the hearts of men and women.

Find a person where Jesus is King, Ruler, Lord and you will have found the location of the Kingdom of God.

The more 'compassion' or 'love' programs given over to the government will result in a dictatorship, fascism, communism, big brother, or whatever you want to call it- Power corrupts men. We are individually our brother's keepers. It is vital that we take personal responsibility and stop depending on the government- or we will one day be slaves. Power corrupts.

Give me a Constitution that protects the liberties of compassionate and loving people and that is the country I would choose to live in. Millions used to view America that way.

Today we are global players in a game of power and politics. We pass legislation to buy votes and serve special interests but the individual freedom and responsibility that Jesus preached is ignored in favor of pork spending and failed human wisdom.

If everyone loved their neighbor as themselves we would have no need of government 'compassion'.

But everyone doesn't do that so it has become the governments job to enforce morality.

If we are not headed towards fascism or a police state or a dictatorship then we will be the first nation in the history of the world to hold in check the corrupting powers given to the executive branch of our government, the corruption of our Congress and the politicalization of our justice system.

Between globalization, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the 1000's of federal agencies and NGO controlling public policy we have definately far exceeded the mandate of the US Constitution.

I support government assistance to the needy, the disadvantaged and the helpless.

I repeat I support it, because if Christians aren't going to do it at least something is being done for these people.

If memory serves me I read that there are at least 224 million 'Christians' in America and we (Christians) spend more money on dog food than help to the needy.

I am grateful to be an American and a Christian, but I am not satisfied with the direction either group is headed. At least I am not satified with my own compassion for others.

I as a Christian feel our faith (or religion if you understand it that way) needs to wake up and step up to show Christ's love and compassion and truth in real tangible ways.

 

"Some Marines say they can see the day when the Corps will be required to execute Haiti-like missions, or worse, within the borders of the United States....Because of the rising potential for civil disobedience within the inner cities, it is inevitable the U.S. military will be employed more often within American borders....To enable the Marines to execute these new domestic missions in the same way that they do abroad, Major Reeves calls for major alterations in U.S. laws." Sacramento Bee (scanned here: Forum section)*, November 30, 1997: Our civilian-military face off - The Bill of Rights no obstacle for Corps

sweet

You can find a scan of this article here- link Click on Forum Section.

 

Well yes, I find it troubling that simply writing in a blog about opposing torture can get you fired - particularly when one is writing about opposing torture being committed by Americans.

In the interest of remaining on topic - it would fit in with items 2 and 6 in the first post.

 

God bless you, rhester...

 

Are you saying that you get to decide what Jesus supported? Social Security is a total albatross. Its financial performance would get any financial money manager fired and thrown in jail. Again, I agree with helping people, just in a diffferent way.

 

Obviously, Christ was "liberal" in that time, but to equate his liberalism to the secular humanism of today's liberal movement is ridiculous. Socially speaking, Christ was seriously conservative by today's standards.

You make assumptions that because Christ told PEOPLE to be compassionate that he wanted government to fill that same responsibility. I disagree. I believe socialist government programs have a negative effect on both the people they are attempting to help and obviously the people footing the bill. I do believe in INDIVIDUALLY helping the same people you mentioned.

Are you saying that you get to decide what Jesus supported? Social Security is a total albatross. Its financial performance would get any financial money manager fired and thrown in jail. Again, I agree with helping people, just in a diffferent way.

 

From the grandson of Southern church going Republicans, I can only admit that they were out of their minds. The conduct of many of my own family in that time was and still is an embarassment. I will however, point out that the Civil Rights Act was voted for by a larger proportion of Republicans than their counterparts in the "Dixiecratic" party.

I don't appreciate your assertion that I don't care for the poor. You know nothing about me or the charities I support. You are arrogant in your assumption that those who disagree with you must be bigoted tight-wads.

While Christ absolutely gravitated towards the meek, the commanded tithe is something of a FLAT TAX. Seems pretty conservative to me. Also, tax collectors during Jesus' life were looked on negatively. There are parables in the Gospels that speak to this. I don't know what Jesus' opinion on Socialism vs. Capitalism. History just proves Socialism's failure.

 

dude!

I swear I just saw the phrase 'secular humanism' as I was skimming Wild Bill's post.

Wow. I haven't heard that term since a bunch of Christian fundie ladies were spending all day pouring through school textbooks and finding subliminal penises everywhere, convinced the 'secular humanists' were trying to corrupt their good Jesus children.

(P.S. what a deal for a fundy lady too! you get to spend all day looking at penises, and then you just call it 'protecting the children for Jesus')

 

Looking at historic tax collectors through modern glasses may not be the most accurate assessment of the attitude and larger message Christ was trying to deliver.

But I don't really see any history of socialism's failure, anymore than capitalism's. The truth is there is no pure example of either.

What has succeeded has been a mixture of the too, to varying degrees. Certainly the robbe baron perioed was a horrible failure for most of the country, but it was the most unbridled era of capitalism. It was a failure, because it failed such a vast majority while being good for but a few.

What worked was to have some things such as mail service, roads, defense, etc. to be handled in a socialistic govt. controlled manner.

Now if you want to look at the EU, the Euro is stronger than the dollar, They have America paying for the defense of much of the world, and that seems ok with America. It is just different priorities. The Europeans own huge hotel chains in the U.S. own huge oil chains in the U.S. work less hours and spend more time on vacation. That isn't pure socialism for them that is working either. Different priorities breed different ideas of success. Yet both models may claim definite successes, but neither work without infusing bits of the other. Without some private ownership in socialist Europe nothing gets done. Yet without some govt. controlled operations in the U.S. we would grind to a halt.

 

You are delusional.

I don't know how Christ would have felt about government caring for the welfare of the people and neither do you. You may believe that "socialist programs" have a negative effect, but Social Security (far from "socialist" IMO) has lifted generations of elderly people from destitution. Before SS, the elderly were a near permanent underclass and that problem has been mitigated in a major way by the single most successful social program of all time.

No, but you seem to be saying that YOU do.

It is the single most successful social program in US history. You can't argue with facts.

Yeah, you seem to be espousing "helping" them by taking away the safety net that keeps the elderly from becoming a permanent underclass as they were before Social Security.

 

I have spent many hours in nursing homes and this is a real sore spot for me.
That idea that government social programs was the 'right' solution to a difficult problem.

Only because I am old I must remind you of a day not even 50 yrs ago that went back to the beginning of this nation when decent people took care of their aging parents and relatives. They moved them into their homes, they built guest rooms and they loved them. Institutionized dying villages (nursing homes) and social security programs were considered a good idea but I wouldn't say they are more successful today than responsible citizens and families were in the past.

When people no longer love and respect the elderly then they take their little selfish lives and throw their parents on the government. The safety net that is socialized imprisonment for the elderly is a convenient way for self seeking, materialistic people to pat themselves on the back for getting the 'old folks' out of site and out of mind. You would be surprised at how many elderly are forced into nursing homes because all they have is SS. But that is not all they have, they have 'loving' children. Sure there are many elderly on SS who remain in their homes but alot of them live a life of loneliness and poverty.

Wise children don't only prepare for their own retirement but they prepare to give back to their parents- something that is right and unselfish.

I went to nursing homes for 5 yrs on a regular basis in three different cities, weekly my wife and I would go in and sing, talk and play games with hundreds of older Americans who were on SS, they rarely saw their children and grandchildren and they were lonely and sad as **********

well, you can see this is a sore spot for me. I love older people who are on social security. But my great grand parents were taken care of by their children in their own home. They didn't need what SS they received. My grand parents were taken care of by their children in their own home and my mother is being taken care of the same.

It is a sacrifice and and a burden and a responsibility, but it is decent and it is the right thing for children to do.

I am not against all government help but I can't stand to hear about how noble and successful we have become by letting the government do for us what we should do for ourselves. Where is our decency and love and personal sacrifice?

Today people want government to clean up the mess of self centered, materialistic, extravagent, debt ridden lifestyles. We make the mess- government bails us out.

Thank God for nursing homes and social security- at least it helps us out when are hearts no longer understand how to deal with problems with personal responsibility, sacrifice and integrity. I wouldn't want any elderly person to lose one cent of SS, but the elderly underclass was created by selfish children and neighbors who no longer took responsibility and sacrificed.

Cable TV, eating out, microwaves, computers, entertainment, high mortgage payments, 2 cars in every driveway, cell phones, plasma screens, and riding lawnmowers are so essential today that what our grandparents sacrificed and lived without pales to what we enjoy in excess while they enjoy their retirement years staring out the nursing home window.

I've never liked government programs that take away our personal responsibility to do what is right even if it costs us our lives.

 

Very well said rhester. I have a hard time not agreeing with you.

 

andymoon- you are a fine poster, and I apologize for the tone of my post.
I have been hurt spending time with elderly folk in nursing homes. I shouldn't have made it seem personal towards you.

rhadamanthus- Thankyou, I am guilty of excesses also, but I must learn sacrifice and compassion. I want to learn to take more responsibility. That is just my opinion.

 

I agree with you are but there has been a major increase in life expectancy in a relatively short period of time. Sometimes I think our technology moves faster than our culture can handle. Through modern medicine etc people live much longer. There are just more old people. When the country was founded the average life span was under 40. It wasn't as tough back in 1900 when 50 was the average life span. Now it is over 80. What is going to be expected of a family when the average life span gets to be around 130 in the next 25 years like some are predicting?

 

Decent people indeed did, and still do, these things. However, in the 1920s, the single biggest segment of people living in poverty were the elderly. The decent folks did everything they could to take care of their parents, but the people whose children could not or would not take on that burden lived destitute lives as did the people who did not have children to look after them.

Perhaps Social Security has caused a shift in the family dynamic, but I believe that it is more likely that SS has simply highlighted an already large problem: the elderly are not cared for by their families as much as they should be.

It is a sad reality, to be sure, but doing away with SS will simply be acting to impoverish the elderly who will not be looked after by relatives.

And what would those people have without SS? Homelessness, disease, and quick death just like they had in the 1920s and before.

Agreed. Do you want to propose legislation to this effect? If not, SS remains the best solution from a government standpoint.

I agree with you. I have not had a relative go to a nursing home until my grandmother, who is suffering from Alzheimers and needs specialized care. I fully expect to take my father in at some point and fully believe that I will also care for my mother one day.

However, I have been an only child since 1989 and if anything happens to me, at least they will have SS to keep them from living on the street.

I did not say anything about our "nobility," much less claim that we were successful as a society as a result of SS. I said that SS is the single most successful social program of all time. It lifted millions of elderly people out of the gutter, gave them the means to have a roof over their heads and food on their plates, and gave back something to people who worked all their lives and helped to build America.

When SS was started, the "self centered, materialistic, extravagent, debt ridden lifestyles" hadn't even begun to crop up. The mess was already there, millions of homeless, destitute elderly folks lining the streets, filling the shelters, and crowding the soup kitchens.

Personally, I could see a situation where SS could completely go away, but it would require a fundamental shift in our policies of taxation, spending, and balanced budgets.

I agree with you that more people should be taking care of their parents, but I think your reminiscing about the "good old days" overlooks the very real problem that existed when SS was created. We ALREADY had millions of destitute elderly people, LONG before "Cable TV, eating out, microwaves, computers, entertainment, high mortgage payments, 2 cars in every driveway, cell phones, plasma screens, and riding lawnmowers."

 

You are a fine poster who has not been disrespectful in the past. I took no offense.

 

I agree with that, my post was tainted by emotion.

 

As I said, nothing personal, I understand SS, I have hurt feelings spending time in nursing homes and I let my emotions out there...

Try visiting several once a week for just 6 months and mention SS- most will tell you they would trade it all for a few more visits.

I certainly shouldn't throw any stones, I have a hard time going now simply because it hurts.

just being honest

 

But the thing is, the people who aren't getting visits now would not be getting visits OR have a roof over their head without SS.

I agree with you WRT nursing homes. They are truly depressing places and are a major reason that i will be building a garage apartment for my father over the course of the next decade.