The shirt says "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment. Luke 16:23. (Don't let it be you.)" I had trouble reading the numbers on the Biblical cite and at first saw that 16 as 18. I looked it up:
And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.I thought, wow, that is not the right Biblical citation for the Tea Party!
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
All other Commandments are reserved to the states.
A horrible gathering of what are clearly domestic terrorists.
I hope someone called the FBI to report these people.
Where is DHS?
"I thought, wow, that is not the right Biblical citation for the Tea Party!"
Not true. Think about it: Jesus did not say, "Vote into office rulers who will tax your wealth and redistribute it to those who have less so that the rulers can consolidate political power, the poor can be kept dependent and compliant, and you can feel righteous, holy, and good about yourself."
Meade - nailed it. That verse would fit nicely with a group devoted to smaller govt't and more individual responsibility. I bet if you did a study you would find that the average tea party is not rich and a big charitable giver.
Jesus' response to the rich young man allows the young man the free will to give his money to the poor of his choice, or to reject the Lord's answer and keep his money.
That is not the case with taxpayers. They are required to give to the Government whatever the Government requires at the point of a gun. The Government then determines on whom the taxes will be spent.
Why not?
He said, "Sell all you have ...", not "Give all you have to the government."
But if you suggested Luke 22:36 instead, I'd agree with you:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
He didn't say take from everybody else and then redistribute it to the people that you and you[the ruler] alone think are deserving of everyone elses' earnings.
Try this for YOUR post to fit Obama-
He [the ruler-Obama] should give his own earnings-5.8 million and redistribute that.
Then you know ironically we're back to the original premise even your mistaken proverb or whatever would fit.
For the rich young man, his wealth was more important than God. Thus Jesus told him to sell everything and give it to the poor. Jesus doesn't ask all believers to sell everything they have. We're supposed to rid ourselves of anything that has become more important than God.
What would Jesus say about George Bush redistributing hundreds of billions to the wealthy by changing the tax code from his precedessor? Let me guess, it's not "redistributing" when the money flows upwards to the wealthy.
garage, why is it redistribution when people are simply keeping more of what they earn? Whose money is it, anyway? The federal government's?
When was this tea party and why are there so many kids there? Are they all homeschooled??
Thou understandiths not. That was advice was delivered to that one man. Noted he was extremely rich, Mammon was his god. So for that particular man to give up his wealth would be his salvation. It was not general advice to the population.
Let me guess, it's not "redistributing" when the money flows upwards to the wealthy.
Actually, I'd say it's not "redistributing" when you let the rich keep more of what they earn.
Not taking money away from people is a failure to redistribute.
I'm not sure in which universe this isn't just as simple as it sounds.
The partiers are so incredibly stupid it's painful to watch. We share some opponents, and their complete failure to do anything beyond waving stupid signs is not helping.
For a clear example, BHO named a member of the National Council of La Raza to the highest court in the land, and the partiers said almost nothing (I think I heard one say something at one event, but that's it).
A member of a far-left racial power group on the highest court is going to affect them for decades, but all those idiots care about is their already low taxes. I have never seen a political group that's dumber and less aware.
Jesus instructed his followers to give to the poor. In modern terms I'd say it means two things very clearly. Christians who want the government to tax everybody to do the work the Lord required, are missing the point entirely. Secondly a person of wealth can use his wealth to create more wealth and be able to give more. You don't have to sell everything you own. If Bill Gates had sold Microsoft in 1989 how much could he have given compared to now?
A mix of church and state?
Careful now...
That tea partier is apparently a Christian, and so are many here, but is it best to focus on that one Christian, or that one racist, or that one girl who wants to cut off any politician's dick who is against "female reproductive rights"?
The MOVEMENT is getting larger, and as a result, more diverse. I hope the tea party can maintain their cohesiveness with a simple message that EVERYONE can agree on.
So far it isn't clear to me what that message is.
Fascinating how many old, white, male people are not in those pictures. Especially that family of Tea Klanners (that's the National Socialists' latest bon mot) in the first shot.
Alpha will need another hit of lithium.
Where did the gals from Little House on the Prairie come from?
Oh wow! An anti-politician political rally. What a courageous and meaningful stance to take. But anarchists don't generally tend to wear bonnets. Hmmm...
I have proof that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional (at least according to a Tea Partier's perspective). See, in Article 1, Section 8, it says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Right there in the constitution it lays out the right to provide for the "general welfare".
Repeal that damn thing, Tea People!
"I thought, wow, that is not the right Biblical citation for the Tea Party!"
It was a quote from Jesus - the first one, not the second one. The second one says give it all to me and I'll pass it along to those who vote for me. Check the stimulus distribution to date.
"shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
There's your problem: half pay none and vote for the guy taxing the other half.
I dunno Titus but on some other thread you are asking Althouse to find someone that isn't caucasian.
What are the odds seeing as it's Wisconsin
Well, let's go to the census bureau-why don't we-Titus.
Here it is:
Black persons, percent, 2008
Wisconsin 6.1%...... US 12.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2008
Wisconsin 1.0%....... US 1.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2008
Wisconsin 2.0%........US 4.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2008
WIsconsin-Z...........US 0.2%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008
Wisconsin 5.1%......US 15.4%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008
Wisconsin 85.1%........ US 65.6%
Census.gov
It's Whiteyville! Titus.
And you a numbers guy-human resources no less.
Jesus, Bag! Do you ever read? What is the meaning of "duties, imposts and excises" that those unconstitutional founders spoke about? Did you notice how the word "taxes" was mentioned in the first clause but not in the clause where it says anything about uniformity?
Probably not. But what do you care about the Constitution anyway!? They're just a bunch of words to really around. Who cares what it really says!?!?!?!?!?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts...
Hel-lo! Missed something, Jaundice-eye! The Congress is supposed to PAY THE DEBTS, not run them into the fucking 10 trillion dollar range.
...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
The general Welfare of the United States. You know, the country as an entity. The Constitution does not charge Congress with the responsibility and duty to see to the general Welfare of every citizen.
You see, it's a Constitution of Government, not a Manual to Direct and Support Each and Every Citizen.
So how much did you pay in this year, Ritmontana?
Ritmo,
I do appreciate your "Tea People". You're a good man; confused, but thats not a crime...yet.
Hey, who invited the girls from Juniper Creek?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts...
Hel-lo! Missed something, Jaundice-eye! The Congress is supposed to PAY THE DEBTS, not run them into the fucking 10 trillion dollar range.
No, this clause says nothing about what the Congress is supposed to do. It says what it has the power to do. You imagined a verb somewhere between "have the power" and "to pay the debts".
...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
The general Welfare of the United States. You know, the country as an entity. The Constitution does not charge Congress with the responsibility and duty to see to the general Welfare of every citizen.
You know, this is a pretty silly point. Exactly which (purely abstract) aspect of the nation's welfare do you want Congress to provide for, while making sure that no single, actual uh, human being benefits directly?
You see, it's a Constitution of Government, not a Manual to Direct and Support Each and Every Citizen.
I smell a talking point!
So how much did you pay in this year, Ritmontana?
Why are you so interested? I'm in the top 15 percent of households, as a single, so by any reasonable standard that's not too shabby. Wealth is a relative thing, you know. And speaking of which, no relative of mine ever got me what I've achieved through connections, any loans I've taken were paid off, and I'm happy with what I do. I'm also happy seeing people benefit from what I do. So why the fuck should I get all steamed about something so abstract as a number? My dick size also can be measured, but I'd like to think that what I do with it is more important.
I mean, sure I've bitched like the rest of you about taxes, but the point is that they're doing something useful with the money - and people will differ on what they consider a good use. I certainly don't see what good Congress did with the funds in the budgets Bush approved. And he didn't have the integrity to start cutting gov't funds with his own salary - as Ross Perot probably would have done. For a party of rich people who talk about not relying on government for anything, and how they're going to cut its size, they sure don't like to start with their own paychecks.
Get me some integrity among Republicans when it comes to their purported principles and then I'll consider that they know what they're doing when it comes to policy.
That's the real issue, to my mind.
Oh wait, I got a refund this year. Not much, but what the heck. And my investments grew much more in 2009 than they did in 2007 - 2008. So there you have it.
Didn't want to spend so much time talking about the real issues while leaving you hanging on a simple yes or no, if not an actual number.
There are enough loopholes for most interested parties. But I digress. The flat tax talk has seen its day and as Montaigne pointed out, the biggest expenditures are the programs that won't get cut. Except for defense. It's good that the Tea Partiers are talking about government responsibility - it gives you the impression that they are actually concerned about the republic and not just their own pocketbooks. But it's too little, too late. And too poorly thought out.
Obama's likely to get his agenda so you'd best hope he knows what he's doing. It's not like he hasn't pulled any surprises out of his sleeve already. Maybe they'll be positive ones that he can reveal sooner, as long as the right moves the discussion to one based moreso in good faith than in the opposition of base opportunism.
Actually, I'd say it's not "redistributing" when you let the rich keep more of what they earn.
So why do righties hate when someone else gets to keep more of what they earn?
So why do righties hate when someone else gets to keep more of what they earn?
It has to do with whether they're poor or not. You see, the right often (not always, mustn't stereotype, but often) prefers to view human society as a hierarchy. And the most convenient metric for doing that is wealth. It provides the comforting illusion to them of order - which is important in a conservative's perspective. And how can order, let alone authority, be reinforced if you're not lavishing praises on Bill Gates and telling the little guy that he's a pissant who deserves nothing from him?
This is an oversimplification, but instructive to lefties and independents who have trouble understanding the more populist and social ideas of the right. Both sides can be persuaded to vote out of fear. The right fears a lack of order, the left, a lack of purpose.
Is AlphaSniveler whipped up into a frenzy over these horrid racists, bigots, and homophones yet?
Ritmo waxes on what it's like being on the right. How would you know Ritmo? The grass has always been greener on this side. Stop being a miserable drech.
What would Jesus say about George Bush redistributing hundreds of billions to the wealthy by changing the tax code from his precedessor?
The only way to consider a tax cut to be "redistribution" is if you assume that a 100% tax rate is natural and anything short of that is a gift to the recipient. That is exactly the sort of attitude that leads people to accuse you lot of being Communists -- you think it is redistribution to let people keep their own money!
That being said, Bush did engage in quite a bit of wealth redistribution by signing the Medicare drugs bill into law; like all Medicare programs, the bill redistributes wealth from younger workers to the comparatively well-off (but politically active and photogenic) elderly.
That is exactly the sort of attitude that leads people to accuse you lot of being Communists -- you think it is redistribution to let people keep their own money!
Except those tax cuts cost money. Other people pay for them. Where does the treasury come looking to pay for the lost revenue? By the way did the communists in charge give you a tax cut this year?
Amish Tea Partiers?
Tea Party Crashers
I love the 'Came Prepared' signage of the tea partiers.
Except those tax cuts cost money.
There you go again, acting like the money belongs to the government and tax cuts are payments to the people who pay taxes. Taxes don't cost money. Government spending costs money. Taxes are what the government extorts from us to pay for that spending. Cutting taxes "costs" like refusing to give money to your junkie brother-in-law "costs".
By the way did the communists in charge give you a tax cut this year?
My taxes went up this year. They'll go up even more next year. As it is, I pay slightly over three times my proportional share of the income tax burden.
Oh, and over six times my share of the California income tax burden. :)
I share both my state and my nation with an awful lot of leeches.
Yeah looks just like a Klan rally.
Jesus explicitly condemned failing to take care of your own family and the practice of making an excuse not to do so by pledging your wealth to God.
This same failure to take care of your own family and obligations, as well as poor people who were able or had families who ought to have provided for them but who took charity were also scolded by the apostles in their letters. Charity was reserved for true widows and orphans, not just women who lost a husband or children who lost their parents. If I'm not mistaken Jewish law described who had obligations to the wife of the dead man entirely explicitly. Jesus did not say a single thing to reverse that.
In the story Jesus told of the widow's mite the rich man who gave his wealth to the church was portrayed as bad because of his motivation and the woman who had nothing and gave all she had was praised.
So that very famous story has two elements that contradict the idea that Jesus was about the rich giving away their stuff. The rich man who did so in that story was not praised and the widow was not told that she was exempt. In fact, the widow, as poor as she was, had the same relationship to giving her money as the rich young man who loved God but couldn't bring himself to give.
Also, the widow didn't give enough to actually help anyone. Her giving was irrelevant to any good that would be done with the money while the rich man would have helped a whole lot of the poor. But Jesus thought those two coins were more important. Clearly, in anything related to wealth he's looking at motivation.
I don't think that a person can make the argument that Jesus was hostile to personal wealth. It requires ignoring everything else he says about money and obligations as well as what his apostles say in their letters about obligations and giving.
It's just as easy, if not easier, to argue that Jesus was all about working and paying your own way and taking care of your own family.
Right--Jesus teaches that rich people have dysfunctional relationships with their money. They either don't give away enough of it, or they give it away for self-aggrandizing reasons. Thus, it's harder for a rich person to get into heaven than it is for a camel to get through the eye of a needle--i.e., it's impossible.
Sorry, Ann,just not the group I want to hang with. Using religion as a weapon, not my gig. The diversity of people there was totally underwhelming and their blah, blah, blah is just mind numbing. No thanks, tea party. Flash in the pan, will have no effect on elections, especially here in California.
Vicki from Pasadena
Once again garage, they did not cut rates bur merely changed the withholding table to have less withheld from your weekly pay check. You owe the same as you would have anyway; you just have to pay it at the end of the year.
Smoke and mirrors.
If you really don't like getting into a discussion of what the Bible says about various things, why it says what it says, and what we're supposed to take away from it, Kovack, why bother to make simplistic announcements about what it means and what Jesus teaches?
I recall wonderful discussions with other Bible students about wealth and how much was too much and a sincere person quickly comes to realize that "too much wealth" is always more than you've got so it's always someone else who ought to give up what they have. It's always someone else.
But its not and it can't be someone else. What do you have that is more than you need? What routine expense is actually indulgent and wasteful? Is your comfort really any different than the comfort of someone more comfortable than you are? Certainly there is someone less comfortable, so isn't that proof you have too much? You bought a second pair of jeans, why do you need two pair? You bought them at the mall when the jeans at Costco are a quarter of the cost and the jeans at Goodwill are two dollars. The $38 bucks extra could have been used to help the poor. So why didn't you?
The reason you didn't is because it's all about those people richer than you who have more than you do. They ought to give. They ought to embrace a poor life style out of piety and give what they have to the poor. They don't need what they have, after all. The level of "need what I have" is always what *I* have.
And then you look at scripture again and realize that this isn't what it says. Never was. Jesus is not explicitly or even implicitly against material wealth.
Well, I think there are a lot of ascetics out there who would disagree with you, Synova. But please, explain it to me like I'm stupid: what did Jesus mean when he said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"? Or when, in the parable of the sower, he says that wealth chokes the seed of the word so that it isn't fruitful? I think that's pretty explicit, but surely you'd have to admit that that's at least an implicit condemnation of wealth. I'm not spinning Jesus's words; I'm just quoting him. Please quote one Gospel passage where Jesus says that material wealth is a righteous blessing from God.
Ascetics are on my side with this or they wouldn't go to such extremes. If one is not going to that extreme while claiming that Jesus/God does require it, then I hardly feel inclined to listen to them lecture.
The ascetic understands that there is no magic point where comfort becomes excess so they go with discomfort.
Anyone else is doing just what I said... defining wealth as more than whatever they've got. The sinner is always someone else.
What is clear and is explicit is direction about the proper relationship to wealth. And that happens inside our heads and hearts so it makes it hard for other people to point fingers.
Some people don't like that.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा