You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

[_madeleine]

Re: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus


I don't know why anyone would want to.

[_Bond James Bond]

Re: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus


I don't know why anyone would want to.

So that people can be "Christian" one hour a week and businessmen who maximize profits by crushing workers the rest of the week. If they're one with God then it's cool to be assholes the rest of the week.

[_madeleine]

If they're one with God then it's cool to be assholes the rest of the week.

I wouldn't call that being one with God.

[_Bond James Bond]

If they're one with God then it's cool to be assholes the rest of the week.

I wouldn't call that being one with God.

Of course not, but it's how people rationalize anything. Going to Church is like the antidote for any bad behavior accumulated during the week.

[_madeleine]

Of course not, but it's how people rationalize anything. Going to Church is like the antidote for any bad behavior accumulated during the week.

At least the one's at church recognize there is something bad going on. There is the possibility that eventually they'll choose to change the bad behavior, and seek forgiveness for what they are at fault for, rather than rationalize it away.

The person who doesn't recognize their behavior as bad, has a longer road.

[_Kevin Graham]

Is that what I said? I thought I said that, so far as mortality is generally concerned, Jesus never taught a doctrine, and never made a foray into politics or social policy requiring the "abolition" of poverty.

Then answer the question. Why does Jesus command those who have, to give to those who don't? Either this is done for the benefit of those giving or those receiving. So which is it? If the poor exist simply for the purpose of providing others with an opportunity to be charitable, then I could understand why some folks would think that poverty wasn't necessarily something Christ wanted abolished. But if Christ commanded us to give to the poor because he wanted to abolish poverty, then logic dictates that he would support state legislative means to serve that same goal. But none of his followers were politicians or were in a position to effect that kind of change, so the subject never really came up in the scriptures. But to say he would be against government measures to induce social equality is really an argument from silence.

This implies a further, ultimate metaphysical or theological question of why any defects or unhappy circumstances are on the earth at all.

Not really, I ask becaue it cuts to the heart of your argument. If it helps, I'll rephrase it from "why does poverty exist", to "why is charity a commandment"?

Suffice it to say that poverty exists because the human condition exists, and the human condition exists because of the Fall, and all of this is a part of the plan of salvation, in which all of us are participating.

But in modern Capitalistic systems, poverty exists because people are not paid a livable wage for their labor. Some of it exists because people are born with mental or physical diasbilities, and others due to laziness, but these are by far the exceptions to the rule. Most impoverished people in America actually work and pay taxes. Their labor and services they provide are usually necessary for our society to work as it does, so to say they could move up and improve their status through harder work doesn't change the fact that someone else would have to take their place. Poverty will always exist in Capitalism because it is a necessary component. This is why I believe Jesus would never have condoned it, and assuming he returns during this generation and establishes the "Kingdom of God" on earth, I think it is safe to say a capitalistic system is the furthest thing we can expect to see.

Now you're talking like a Protestant fundamentalist who believes he is in the possession of the correct interpretation of biblical texts, all other possible interpretations being heretical.

Not at all. I am simply speaking of what Jesus the historical (not theological) figure taught during his ministry on earth. This is a subject for historians just the same. I don't think this is a matter of who has the proper interpretation of the Bible. You're going to bring in the Old Testament, which just goes to show that it is you who is using a predetermined theology to interpret Jesus' teachings. The Old Testament, as far as historians are concerned, has nothing to do with Jesus's teachings. He frequently veered away from traditional Old Testament doctrines, so I don't really care if you think you've found a scripture in Leviticus that justifies some element of Capitalism. What I am focused on at this time is what Jesus taught in the New Testament, and how modern Extremists on the Right reconcile his teachings with their politics.

In context and taking all of his teachings as a system, he did nothing of the kind (and keep in mind here that most of his teachings are not found in the synoptic gospels, but in the teachings of the apostles who continued spreading his gospel after his death.

Yes, I'm aware of this, which only goes to further my point I think. Paul and Luke, for example, expanded on Jesus' teaching by pointing out that we should not seek to obtain private property at all. The only riches that should concern us are those found in heaven, and those would come to us only through the actions of giving away "unrighteous mammon" to those in need. Another anti-capitalistic trait found throughout Christ's teachings is that we shouldn't give if we expect something in return:

“If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked” (Luke 6:34-35)

This flies in the face of the Capitalistic business of investment banking and ursury practices that were also condemned in the Old Testament on numerous occasions (i.e. "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an creditor, neither shalt thou lay upon him interest" -Ex 22:25)

He did nothing of the kind. He encouraged his followers to emphasize and concentrate upon spiritual wealth, and told them that, if they seek the Kingdom of God first, all other things of a temporal nature would be "added unto" them as they lived righteously.

He did far more than simply "encourage" them to concentrate on spiritual wealth; he explicitly commanded them to give up their worldly possessions to benefit those in need. This again flies in the face of everything the modern-day Capitialist stands for. In their minds, the poor in America aren't even really poor, as we're told that by comparison to those in third-world countries, they're essentially rich. We're also told that the only reason the poor are poor, is because they choose to be. I don't see anything in Christ's teachings supporting these kinds of judgments and rationalizations.

Unbiblical.

Oh? Giving up one's worldly possessions wasn't required in order to obtain salvation? Apparently, you're not familiar with what Christ told the rich man who asked to follow him:

"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, 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." (Matt 19:21-24)

In fact, his followers who owned worldly property did so with the understanding that it wasn't really theirs to begin with. Everything belonged to God and Christ's followers were to give everything they had so it could be distributed evenly amongs those within the community, each according to his need. While the goal of social equality is frequently ridiculed as communistic and evil among some Right Wingers, Jesus and his disciples felt it was a goal worth striving for:

"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2:44-45)

"There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas. He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet." (Acts 4:34-37)

Is it possible that Marx’s famous line “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” took its inspiration directly from the New Testament? The parallel is too striking to be coincidence. According to Luke, Jesus taught that his followers must sell their worldly possessions in order to inherit spiritual wealth that awaits them in heaven:

"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For wherever your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:32-4)

As far as the Right Wing's whipping boy (taxes), Jesus seemed to take a very different approach to this subject, essentially instructing his followers to give whatever the state authorities asked of them, simply because all they wanted was worldly money, which apparently had no value to those seeking the Kingdom of Heaven:

"Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? But he perceived their craftiness and said to them, 'Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?'They said, 'The emperor's.' He said to them, 'Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.' And they were not able in the presence of the peopel to trap him by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent." (Luke 20:21-26.NRSV)

This is not only a non sequiter but a mixing of scriptural concepts that are not related.

It isn't a non sequitur and they are related.

Those who are either hot or cold, or lukewarm, are the Saints mentioned in Revelation who are not valiant in their living of the gospel, and who have become complacent and spiritually slothful. The only economic reference in that section is Rev. 3:16

In that "section"? Rev 3:16 is precisely the verse I quoted. The "lukewarm" reference comes from that verse and it applies specifically to a Rich man who Christ calls "miserable and wretched." His sin was his pride in his wealth I agree, but the wealth itself is evil because it brings out the pride. The only reason anyone would seek excessive wealth is pride and vanity. Christ's answer? Avoid private property altogether.

but here again, wealth itself, wealth creation, affluence, and economic abundance are never criticized (or mentioned), only materialism is on the chopping block here, and its children greed, avarice, selfishness, covetousness and envy, this last being the emotional and psychological basis of socialism

You do not understand socialism then. Envy has nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism is a system designed to serve those who actually work and produce goods and services, and it is designed to include everyone in society. This is why poverty cannot exist in a true socialistic society, and it is precisely why Christ's Church felt it necessary to design a system that prevented the kind of inequality that permeates in modern capitalistic systems. Inequality was viewed as an evil driven by man's desire for worldly wealth.

CFR.

Already done, with the previous Corinthians passage, which said the Church not only gave all it could, it gave more than it could afford to give. In other words, it was anti-Conservative, even wreckless by today's conservative standards, since it gave beyond its own means. Modern Churches are businesses, and rely on the man-made capitalistic system for replenishing their resources. This is why the Church will never give all it has to the poor. It only gives what it feels it can afford, in order to "stay in business" and keep increasing revenues. It doesn't do what the New Testament Churches did, which was to give everything, and then rely on God to replenish its resources. This is interesting because the modern Church requires its membership to give 10% in tithes, no matter what financial situation they're in, insisting that this exercise in faith will result in some future financial miracle in their favor. But unlike the New Testament Church, the modern Church is unwilling to take such leaps in faith.

Christian churches, 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine, existed under very different conditions than we do today, which the Biblical account does not venture into.

So?

The verses above give no socioeconomic context or detail surrounding the conditions Paul mentions.

It gives enough context to understand that the Church had faith in God, not mammon. They were anti-conservative by today's standards in that they gave all they had. It doesn't matter what the surrounding socioeconomic conditions were. What conditions do you imagine could make any difference to the point that by today's standards, they were irresponsible in their spending?

As is always the case, it is the leftist, driven by his burning desire to impose his own interpretations upon the scriptures, thereby, so he believes, transferring the imprimatur of divinity to his ideological nostrums, who is projecting onto others his own motives and agenda.

I'm not imposing anything. I'm simply reading the scriptures as they are. If your only response is I'm a leftist who has a "burning desire" to "impose", well then that doesn't really count as a valid, intellectual rebuttal.

I see that you have well absorbed the Bokovoy concept that the only Christianity that is true Christianity is that Christianity that is economically destructive of its own adherents.

You're not going to get far by misrepresenting either of us, and David is a legitimate Bible scholar who is in a better position to do legiitimate exegesis. We're not. But didn't I just say that they had faith in God, not man-made economic systems, and that God made sure they didn't go without? How is that economically destructive? Has Right Wing ideology completely murdered your concept of faith? Are you also going to make fun of the fishermen who dropped their nets and followed some guy walking on the shore, just because he told them they could become "fishers of men" instead? I mean from a financial perspective, this was clearly an "economically destructive" move for guys who relied on fishing as a living. But they were acting in faith, which is something so few modern day Right Wingers seem to understand about the Bible anymore. The early Church also focused on obeying God's commandments, which included the establishing of system of equality and equal distribution of resources, each according to his need. You're problem is that you're approaching these situations like a CEO would; but then, these apostles had nothing in common with capitalistic-minded wealth-seekers.

Unbiblical. Jesus' teachings regarding "the rich" and their inability to enter the Kingdom of of their being "sent to hell" is hyperbolic in nature

Now look who is imposing his own interpretation of the Bible to suit his political agenda? Of course, there is no reason to believe Jesus was being "hyperbolic" in anything he said in this instance. In fact, it would be counterproductive to be hyperbolic. To what purpose then, was this scripture if it was mere hyperbole? I've never heard this interpretation before, even from thsoe who are clearly rich.

...and cannot be sustained when the Bible as an entire Judeo-Christian corpus of scriptural texts is used as a reference to the larger context behind teachings relating to economic concerns.

Even if we assume you're correct that the Old Testament contradicts Jesus in this instance, the fact is the Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus. Yours is a religious assumption which historians are not obligated to uphold when determining what Jesus taught. By your logic, Jesus never really mean we should "turn the other cheek" since this contradicts the Old Testament's "eye for an eye." You have not even begun to establish hyperbole in his remarks to the Rich man.

No one, I would posit, not already riven with a prexisting ideology to impose on this text could see it as anything else than a condemnation of pride; the effects of which are the sense of human self sufficiency and independence grounded in temporal wealth. It is a condemnation of materialism and worldliness, not wealth itself - to which you cannot provide a single plausible scriptural source - that is in question.

Sure, when you jump all the way to Rev 3, that is a clear condemnation of pride. But this doesn't preclude a condemnation of wealth as well. It certainly follows the clear pattern set throughought the entire New Testament, since the "rich" are always spoken of in a negative context. And it certainly doesn't have any bearing on what Jesus said to the rich man in Matthew and Luke. If you understand the context of the teachings as a whole, as taught by Jesus and his apostles, it is clear that the New Testament Church believed that one must abandon worldly possessions in order to serve and follow God. There is absolutely no reason to read hyperbole in Jesus' remarks, unless of course you're just trying to avoid an uncomfortable conflict with a preferred political ideology.

Unbiblical.

For someone who keeps saying "unbiblical," you sure do ignore a lot of biblical scriptures.

The poor, who obey the commandments and comply with the requirements of the gospel, have specific blessings promised to them, but have no class or group advantage over anyone else at any other socioeconimc level. No such teaching exits in the Bible, nor it the restored gospel (and its "rock" or foundation, revelation) without which there is significant ambiguity and question regarding the actual interpretation of many biblical concepts and texts.

I agree that this isn't clear in Mormonism, and there is probably LDS teaching to the contrary, but the New Testament is perfectly clear that the poor are blessed. He never says anything to the rich, such as "Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God" nor does he ever say anything to the poor such as: "But woe unto you that are rich!"(Lk 6:24). Keep in mind that I never said the poor are automatically going to heaven. I said they have an advantage as far as spirituality goes, in the eyes of God. "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?"(James 2:5)

Indeed, such a concept, if taken seriously, would utterly obviate the entire concept of the plan of salvation in which our individual agency and freedom to choose between a range of alternatives determines our movement toward...

Stop right there, because you seem to have me confused with someone arguing that this is what Mormonism teaches. I'm not concerned with that. I'm outlining what Jesus taught.

As Paul said, God so loved the world that whosoever would believe, obey, and comply with his commandments and teachings, would have everlasting life. The term "whosoever" indicates each and every unique individual encountering the gospel and choosing, according to the free agency he has been given, his response to it and Christ's offer of salvation.

Again, I never said the poor are automatically going to heaven. I said they have an advantage, which is true, and it is perfectly in accordance with the LDS plan of salvation. Jesus favored the poor, the children and the crippled too.

I don't have the time or inclination to take you to the woodshed here.

Well I gave you an easy opportunity to refute me when I said this is true 100% of the time. All you have to do is provide a single example where Republicans fight for proposals that benefit the poor instead of the Rich. I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, and I imagine that I probably am, but only because that figure is probably around 98% instead of 100%. But the fact that you cannot think of a single example kinda reinforces my point.

The Right Wing is almost never on the side of the working class.

Its pointless attempting to answer Graham's waterfall-like Olbermannesque tirade here beyond a few salient points to be made, just briefly and as food for thought.

Gosh droops, you were doing so well... does this mean you won't be challenging my claim that Americans do not want Right Wing politicians getting rid of that socialistic program called Social Security?

What one should notice here is that Kevin's statement above regarding Social Security imply that American workers are getting back money they have paid in to some kind of personal investment portfolio similar to a private sector portfolio, and are simply getting back the principle and interest they have earned on "their" money. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, I never said anything of the sort. So if you'd kindly put down the straw and get back on point. All I said is that most Americans do not want the Tea Party candidates messing with Social Security. Just ask Rand Paul how that's been working out for him during his Town Hall speeches. I also said that they are entitled to it because they have paid into it. This is a matter of fact, so I don't understand why you're responding this way.

Further, the clear implication here that American citizens have an entitlement and preemptive claim upon the property and fruits of the labor of their fellow citizens, their children and grandchildren, is indicative of precisely, not just the economic, but ethical problems faced by the collectivization of economic life.

Apparently, you do not understand Social Security. It has nothing to do with "preemptive claims upon the property and fruits of the labor of their fellow citizens." You don't seem to understand that Social Security has been self-sustaining since its inception some 80 years ago, all workers pay into this fund, including illegal aliens who will never stand a chance of reaping those benefits. If you get rid of Social Security tomorrow, then you also get rid of the revenue that has been sustaining it, so it is a wash, and has no bearing on the Federal Deficit - at least not yet.

What kind of mentality does it require to promulgate this kind of thing?

An educated one, for starters. Federal taxes have reached their lowest point since the 1950's. This is an established fact, that requires only one type of "mentality": one that accepts the objective data willingly.

The USA Today propaganda piece (which one can be satisfied is the case, not only by looking at the obvious logical and empirical gaffs in the piece, but at its source, the Soros created Center for American Progress) for the Obama reelection campaign is so full of obvious whoppers and errors that the mind locks up just contemplating any attempt to cut through its tangled undergrowth.

As I already pointed out, the article only briefly cites a spokesperson for that organization and it also cites the opinion of a Tea Party affiliate. But the argument is based on the available data, not spin coming from some biased think tank as you prefer to imply.

A few points are in order though. In the first place, the source the USA Today propaganda piece uses is the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which considers Social Security as an "insurance payment," and hence, does not calculate it as part of the federal tax burden.

The reason they do this is because that is precisely what it is. All social security "taxes" are put into a fund that has at times lent money to the Federal Government, which in turn has paid interest on the amount loaned. The Social Security fund has earned billions in interest over the years and has even run a surplus on occasion. So no, this is not part of the "tax burden," at least not yet.

Thus, at the outset add 11% to the Breaues 9%.

Why, when they are comparing apples and apples since 1950? If they excluded SS now, they excluded it in all the years since 1950. Any way you slice it, federal taxes are at their lowest since that period.

It also does not include Medicare and Medicaid as a part of the tax burden. Add another 3% for a total average tax burden of 23%

Ditto above. And where are you getting your figures?

But there are other problems.

So far you haven't shown any problems.

The American tax system is not a flat one but a progressive one, with marginal tax rates from 10% to 35%. There is no "average" tax rate. These are federal tax rates, and do not include state and local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and countless taxes hidden in virtually everything we buy and that is a part of our "cost of living" (54% of every gallon of gas we buy is tax overhead). It also does not include general price inflation, which is a government policy created phenomena and is also a tax, essentially a tax on the value of the currency.

You seem to be completely missing the point here. The Right attacks Obama for being a socialist, and as evidence, they use his so-called philosophy of hiking income taxes on everyone. Yet, the taxing which Obama is directly responsible for (i.e. Federal Income Taxes) has actually dropped during his tenure. Obama doesn't have any authority in matters of State taxes. Also, you say there is a 54% gas tax on gasoline, but only 18% of this is Federal tax, and this is much lower than the 27% tax that was in effect during the Bush years. So if you stick with apples/apples. the conclusions by these economists are sound.

Federal taxes alone, as a percentage of GDP, are not at 20%, just a bit lower than the 21% they reached under Clinton.

You're right, they're not at 20%, they're closer to 14%: "In the current budget year, federal tax receipts will be equal to 14.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, the lowest level since Harry Truman was president. In Bush's last year in office, tax receipts were 17.5 percent of GDP, just below their 40-year average." Whatever taxes you feel like they've excluded here, they also excluded for the past few decades. You seem to be thinking that they included these taxes for all the previous years so they could deceptively claim Federal Taxes are low today.

Perhaps you could explain for us how his works in actual practice.

I'm pretty sure I already have on multiple occasions.

The VA system does apparently have some benefits, but this flows from its focus on the treating of veterans, not from its socialized model of care delivery, which feature the same problems - low care quality, dangerously long waiting times to receive care, and the scarcity and rationing of care.

You clearly haven't read the book. But the point here, is that this is the closet thing to a socialized form of health care operating within the United States, and it is the most efficient system we have. If this doesn't utterly decimate the popular claims that government can't do anything right, and social programs are inherently inefficient and wasteful, then I don't know what does.

Yes, Kevin cherry picks carefully everything he posts as evidence, and does not appear to be very well read on much of anything in the political or historical arena (which he makes up for in spades with his passionate excoriation of all the stupid morons around him).

Chery picking? LOL! Droopy, the VA health care system is the closest thing we have to a government run health care system, and that is why I pointed it out. Everyting else on your end is an argument from silence. But I'm glad to see your response to this evidence has changed since the first time I brought it up. But no matter what the evidence, you're apparently going to hold fast to your Right Wing talking points at all costs. Pretty soon you're going to start bearing your testimony that you know FOX News is true, and that Thomas Sowell is a true prophet.

1. No, poverty levels have nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it, as virtually every education expert agrees. Unfortunately for you, Thomas Sowell doesn't qualify. As one expert concluded:

While there is no relationship between poverty and ability, the relationship between poverty and achievement is almost foolproof. To deny that poverty is a factor to be overcome as opposed to an excuse is to deny the reality that all educators, human services workers, law enforcement officers, medical professionals and religious clergy know and have known for years.

Most scholarly studies on this matter have concluded the same thing.

Its far better to be poor in this country than in any social democracy in Europe

How predictable. I'm pretty sure I just said in a previous paragraph that this is a common talking point among Right Wing extremists. Of course it flies in the face of reality since most European Social Democracies enjoy higher standards of living than the USA. I recommend reading the study provided by a school principle in the first link above, since it pretty much covers these comparisons with other countries, and yet reaches the same conclusion that poverty is the underlying factor.

Very similar social programs are available for "the poor" (whoever they are at any given time) as in Europe, but the real reason is that our relatively much freer, more dynamic and energetic economy puts within the reach of the poor many of the temporal things the affluent enjoy, and used to enjoy exclusively, and provides a much better chance to alleviate one's economic situation than in Europe, in the only way it can be alleviated over the long term.
A job.

This makes no sense. Most children who fail in our schools come from families that have jobs. As I said before, we just bought a house. We were shopping for months, and discovered several websites that mapped out available homes by counties, along with the schools in those districts. Each school was given a ranking according to greatschools.com. A school could rank anywhere between a 1 and a 10, and within the wealthiest areas, the public schools all ranked between 9 and 10 whereas the poorer neighborhoods ranked below 5. This was consistent throughout the entire metro Atlanta area consisting of some four million residents and a dozen counties. The numbers represented their rank according to average SAT scores. Now, this fact alone pretty much proves the point. The problem isn't "government" schools. If this were so, then how do you explain Lassiter High School producing far more graduates and collage scholarships than say North Paulding High School? The difference is so significant that people are willing to spend an extra $50k on a home of equal size, just to get their kids into that district. Now how do you explain this? Lassiter is right in the middle of one of the wealthiest areas of East Cobb county Marietta. North Pauliding High School, on the other hand, is in an area that hasn't seen any development in more than a decade. Now moving over to the other side of Atlanta, we have Gwinnett county, which has some very rough neighborhoods. Schools ranked anywhere between 2-6, but then just around the corner is Sugar Hill, where many of the Atlanta Falcon's football players are known to reside. Suddenly we see three schools, elementary, middle and High, all ranked 10. How else do you explain this?

The American public education system, collectively speaking, however, presents us with a sea of intellectually hollow, politicized mediocrity on a vast scale. It is well and long understood that it is not economics that lies at the root of this state of affairs, but politics, culture war, and what is probably the single greatest barrier to educational reforms, the teacher unions.

That is not what's understood, at least not by those who are in the know. The only reason there is a war mentality is because the ignorant folks on the Right love to accuse the teachers of being bad teachers, and blame the unions according to whatever hit piece heritage or cato comes up with - when in fact these same teachers would see dramatically different results if they were to transfer to a school in a wealthier district. You can take the best teacher in Cobb county, send her to Compton L.A. and the only change likely to be found is in the cultural shock she experiences. The student's scores will remain the same.

The reason there are so many "bad" schools in the public school system has everything to do with economic status and fluctuating demographics and frequent migrations. The government doesn't have the luxury of being able to pick the good students and toss out the rest. They, by law, have to accept everyone, including the trouble-makers, teacher abusers, drug dealers, etc. I graduated from Lassiter in 1989 and it was designed to accomodate 1800 students, and but within a few months the economy of Cobb County boomed, and many families, like mine, took job transfers to Atlanta. Suddenly the school was trying to accomodate more than 4000 students from 9th to 12th. There were 1100 students in my graduating class! We had second period lunch at 9am because that was the only way they could fit all the students in the lunchroom throughout the day. So the government was rapidly trying to construct another school, Pope High School. But if students are flocking to Lassiter, this means there are other areas where other schools experience economic downturns, and they end up having to lay off employees and try to maintain over-sized buildings because they no longer have enough students. This is one of the reasons why there is government "waste." You have oversized schools that are very old and need upkeeping, and the government pays to see this through despite the fact that a normal business would only do so if it was cost effective. So much of this is simply the nature of teh beast. When you're obliged to take in all students within a certain geographical area, you never know what you're going to get. Your success and failures depend strictly on the whims of the economy.

I've got a mountain rage of evidence, facts, and history. In fact, its one of the subjects I've taken a concerted interest in since the mid-eighties. Start a union thread and we'll give the anti-Schryver thread a run for its money. I'll deploy the Austrians to dig that intellectual grave for you at the outset, and then move on to salient modern conservative philosophical analysis.

You're the same guy who fled the scene after EAllusion mopped the floors with him on this topic recently. So I don't think I'll fall for your intimidation tactics on this one.

[_Kevin Graham]

Part Two:

The Soros agenda to deeply influence American politics is not a conspiricy theory, but a well known political/ideological project among a core of the "ruling class" intelligentsia.

There are hundreds of millionaires and billionaires who choose to do the same thing except most of them are on the Right. Nothing Soros has done could compare to the money invested in disseminating Right Wing propaganda by the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns the most influential "News" show reaching millions of viewers per night, he owns numerous Right Wing journals including the Wall Street Journal, he owns radio stations that only run RIght Wing blowhards like Beck and Limbaugh, etc. His lapdog is Roger Ailes, CEO of FOX News who has essentially made sure FOX is a reflection of his extremist views. He creates it in his image, and Murdoch just sits back and let's it happen, frequently expressing denial that FOX is biased at all. Ailes is the guy who sent memos to all FOX employees, instructing them to refer to Obama's health care proposal as "government run health care," even though this was a complete falsehood and misrepresentation of what he proposed. They got away with this for months, even years, and no one called them out because their listeners just accepted it uncritically. Ailes did this because he was advised by the same think tanks you frequently cite. It was a psychological strategy to influence weak, impressionable minds who give in to scare tactics. It is an embarrassment to America's credibility that so many of its citizens have been duped by this propaganda outlet. Yeah, there is certainly an education problem, and those who suffer the most are those who vote for nothing, but vote against the Left because they are scared into it.

Nothing Soros has done could even pretend to compare to the kind of influence the RIght Wing billionaires have had. So your whine about Soros seems to be that his crime was to be a rich man who dared to disagrees with Right Wing fanaticism, and is pretty hypocritical. Each side has their own hired academics who share completely different views. The challenge is to respond to each side's argument and not simply complain because the other side is well funded by people who have been demonized by Glenn Beck.

The point is that The Center for American Progress is a organization who's mission is the dissemination of political propaganda. It is not a serious think tank, or even a serious intellectual blog site. Indeed, Robert Dreyfuss, in an article in The Nation of The Nation in March, 2004, said:

It is no different than your various Right Wing Think tanks, except that this one exceptionally influential for an organization that was just created a few years ago. And John Podesta was its founder, not George Soros. It doesn't matter who is responsible for funding it if its contributors keep producing material you're unable to refute. The same holds true for Media Matters for America, which is tremendously successful as a corrective to the numerous lies and falsehoods propagated by the Right Wing media. When I first came across this organization I thought to myself, what a bunch of bogus nonsense. I was sure that everything they said could be refuted by the Right Wing pundits, and that certainly Bill O'Reilly and his gang of misfits would take them to the woodshed if only they knew what was being said. But what I quickly discovered is that those folks at FOX avoid MM4A like the plague, simply because what they say is true and they cannot defend themselves from their attacks. Unlike FOX News, they actually back up everything they say with numerous unbiased sources. And they are racking up the points on a daily basis, to which FOX and its followers have no response but to attack it because Soros donated some money to it. That's pretty lame. The Tea Party wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the Right Wing billionaires who colluded together in response to Obama's election.

You will notice that Horowitz and Poe used this very term as the title of their book on the organization.

I used to be a fan of Horowitz when I was like him, an anti-Muslim bigot. But he is generally regarded as an intellectual hack who can only gain credibility by showing up in Right Wing venues. The same places that give idiots like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck a microphone. And who could argue with anything the Right Wing actor Richard Dreyfuss has to say? LOL!

I have a High School diploma too Kevin.

But you've just recently decided to go to college to obtain a degree, and yet you attack me for having no education when in fact I've had a degree for quite some time now. The point is you're taking classes with kids more than half your age and you're a product of your South Carolina environment; these are the same kinds of minds (immature and inexperienced) that are attracted to the simplisitic, unsophisticated and bigoted ideas of Rand and Hayek. Most adult minds outgrow these influences via further education.

What are you talking about?

I think you know. Mr.Stak shared a story about how you once tried to puff up your credentials as a quasi-academic, by saying you debated your views in an "academic setting," but after further questioning it became apparent that you were talking about some presentation you gave in some elective speech class, to which your like-minded classmates responded with a round of applause. That did wonders for your ego, to be sure. It might be found in this thread, where a couple of well respected scholars called you out for being an intellectual fraud and someone who is too insecure about his education and intelligence. A quick perusal of that thread will reveal some of the same problems I have had with you, where you respond to detailed refutations with a bunch of hyperlinks to your favorite Right Wing propaganda pieces. But then you attack anything I present, even if it comes from conservatives, as a leftist conspiracy. You trust nothing that comes from government funded universities, even though, ironically, you attend one. Also you offer links to your favorite Right Wing novels as if we're supposed to go run down these books and to hunt down whatever point you're trying to make. This doesn't count as a valid response in any wing of academia, and you'll probably learn this if you ever choose to go to graduate school.

[_Kevin Graham]

I should also note that as far as the influence of credible Think Tanks go, the list is as follows:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 88.3
Urban Institute 73.8
Council on Foreign Relations 60.2
BROOKINGS 53.3
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 51.9
Institute for International Economics 48.8
Center for Strategic and International Studies 46.3
American Enterprise Institute 36.6
Cato Institute 36.3
Heritage Foundation 20

Now the least cited (least credible) Think Tanks by legislators are the Right Wing organizations droopy loves to cite so often. ThinkProgress, which is the Think Tank wing of Center for American Progress, almost always bases its conclusions on data provided by either the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Urban Institute and Brookings. I'm not sure it is fair to even consider ThinProgress a "Think Tank at all at this point, it is still in its infancy and merely relays data provided by other highly credible organizations. But it is growing.

[_Droopy]

Translation: I (Droopy) don't know exactly how the analysis is "slipshod and deceptive" (since I haven't really read it) but I know it must be such because of my faith in my ideology. If push comes to shove I (Droopy) may or may not be able to find and post a Limbaughesque response to the analysis. That is, I (Droopy) am bluffing.

If you had bothered reading my post, instead of doing your Keith Olbermann stand-up routine, you'd have seen that I explained exactly whey it was not a reliable graph in any sense.

No one with the slightest degree of intelligence, or not completely addled by ideology, would take a mainstream media piece such as that seriously, not the least reason for which is that its primary claim is demonstrably - indeed, intuitively - false.

[Guest]

Is that what I said? I thought I said that, so far as mortality is generally concerned, Jesus never taught a doctrine, and never made a foray into politics or social policy requiring the "abolition" of poverty.

Then answer the question. Why does Jesus command those who have, to give to those who don't? Either this is done for the benefit of those giving or those receiving. So which is it?

It is done for the benefit of both. If you understood the gospel, or the New Testament, you would have understood this before you asked the question.

If the poor exist simply for the purpose of providing others with an opportunity to be charitable, then I could understand why some folks would think that poverty wasn't necessarily something Christ wanted abolished.

The poor exist for very much the same reasons the middle class, upper middle class, and millionaires exist: we exist in a mortal sphere in which, based upon any number of variables, including our own behavior, life choices, character attributes, time and condition of birth, family dynamics etc., we find ourselves, at some point in our lives, in a certain condition.

From a gospel standpoint then, "the poor" exist because of:

1. The Fall

2. The unique personality, character, talents, biases, propensities, perceptions, choices, and life circumstances of each individual.

But this analysis won't do as is because relatively economically free societies, such as the United States, provide a much more open, varied, and dynamic environment for the free play of agency then do other social systems, such as feudalism, caste and serf societies, and collectivist systems, especially when totalitarian in nature.

Hence, the poor exist for different reasons, individual to individual, or among groups (the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, for example, or dhimmi peoples under Muslim rule) for different reasons. In free, prosperous, representative societies, the reasons are going to be much more widely varied and balanced against other external factors to a greater extent, looking at life choices as of pivotal importance for most, as over against an exaggerated focus on life circumstances outside of direct control.

But if Christ commanded us to give to the poor because he wanted to abolish poverty, then logic dictates that he would support state legislative means to serve that same goal.

Any argument that claimed that it follows necessarily (you used the term "dictate") from the premise that Jesus wanted to abolish all human poverty in an earthly sense that he would support a centralized government welfare state of the modern kind, would involve first, begging the question, and secondly, the question of just why we should believe that this approach is logically required. On the face of it, you provide no evidence that Jesus would, even if he had ever taught such a doctrine, look to Caesar as the solution to this problem. There certainly seems to be no apparent logical connection between alleviation of poverty and central government welfare programs. Alternatives are profuse.

There is no instance of the command to be charitable in the New Testament given to the state. All such teaching is aimed at individuals, and only at individuals.

But none of his followers were politicians or were in a position to effect that kind of change, so the subject never really came up in the scriptures.

This begs a big question and attempts to second guess what was in the mind of Jesus and his followers 2,000 years ago, since your particular ideological interpretation of Jesus' teachings is not found in the scriptures. Since it is not to be found in any clear way, it must be absent because of some sociopolitical conditions then in play, which the scriptures do not mention.

This does not appear, it should be obvious, to be careful, logical reasoning, but special pleading.

Graham:

But to say he would be against government measures to induce social equality is really an argument from silence.

1. You have just made such an argument above.

2. Its not an argument from silence, but one grounded in the fact that, not only does no such teaching exist in the New Testament, all teachings relative to charity and alms giving in the New Testament are focused on the individual and his own conscience and upon the concerted action of the Christian community. Secular government is nowhere to be found here, in any capacity.

Not really, I ask becaue it cuts to the heart of your argument. If it helps, I'll rephrase it from "why does poverty exist", to "why is charity a commandment"?

The same reason that forgiving others, living the law of chastity, being honest etc. are all commandments within the gospel Kingdom.

Droopy;

Suffice it to say that poverty exists because the human condition exists, and the human condition exists because of the Fall, and all of this is a part of the plan of salvation, in which all of us are participating.

Graham:

But in modern Capitalistic systems, poverty exists because people are not paid a livable wage for their labor.

I really don't even want to go here. This is classic, doctrinaire Marxist dogma and has been demolished and discredited for well over a century by some of the best economic and philosophic minds that century produced. I find no possible reason to even make an attempt at rebuttal here, as I cannot possibly take such an assertion seriously as a claim about the real world.

One of the most deeply unfortunate (and disturbing) cultural phenomena of the 20th century has been that, unlike its close sibling, Nazism, Marxism and revolutionary socialism survived the failed societies it created and lives on as one of the ideological living dead, haunting the universities, college town bistros, foundations and mainstream media long after it should have been abandoned as a viable philosophy.

Unlike Germany, in which a "de-nazification" took place, society-wide, after the war, no such de-communization took place after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This means also that, unlike Nazism, we may have to deal with socialism again in the future.

This is like re-fighting the Hiss or Rosenburg case all over again. The history is the history, and the facts, evidence, and arguments have all been made and the Left was found, not only wanting, but deeply intellectually compromised in the construction of their own arguments. "Capitalism and Freedom," to borrow a title of a book by Milton Friedman, buried socialism, not the other way around.

Some of it exists because people are born with mental or physical diasbilities, and others due to laziness, but these are by far the exceptions to the rule.

I disagree strongly. The vast majority of poverty, as it exists in America, is:

1. Intermittent for most Americans. Large numbers of people pass through various economic conditions throughout their lives, and most rarely stay in poverty for very long. Poverty for most, in dynamic, growth oriented free market societies is itself, a dynamic condition, always in flux and in process of change.

2. Life choices are a major factor in any economic condition within which one finds oneself, just as this is pivotal in most other life areas, such as a successful marriage, career, or competence at one's hobbies and other interests.

Most impoverished people in America actually work and pay taxes. Their labor and services they provide are usually necessary for our society to work as it does, so to say they could move up and improve their status through harder work doesn't change the fact that someone else would have to take their place.

This is trivial and obvious. Those with low skills and lacking experience (the young, usually, and others without deeper, specific skills) begin at the bottom. So?

Poverty will always exist in Capitalism because it is a necessary component.

More faith promoting Marxist theory. There is so much that could be said about this but, suffice it to say for the moment, the idea that poverty is a "necessary component" of capitalism is logically self refuting for anyone who understands how free markets actually work, how and why wealth is created, and what the logical and material relations really are between members of a free market oriented society.

This is why I believe Jesus would never have condoned it, and assuming he returns during this generation and establishes the "Kingdom of God" on earth, I think it is safe to say a capitalistic system is the furthest thing we can expect to see.

I would expect to see free agency given free reign among free and righteous human beings who will be given their individual stewardships and allowed to "govern themselves" and their economic affairs to the best of their talents and abilities for the purpose of expanding, increasing, extending and enlarging their stewarship.

In other words, creating wealth, both for themselves and for the Zion community.

Not at all. I am simply speaking of what Jesus the historical (not theological) figure taught during his ministry on earth.

I make no distinction between the two, and this would seem to imply severe conceptual distance between yourself and myself here. What Jesus taught is really not "up for grabs" in the Church as it is in the secular world.

The Old Testament, as far as historians are concerned, has nothing to do with Jesus's teachings.

LDS are not going to defer to this theoretical perspective, especially as laden as it is with its own philosophical, cultural, and metaphysical assumptions.

What I am focused on at this time is what Jesus taught in the New Testament, and how modern Extremists on the Right reconcile his teachings with their politics.

I haven't "reconciled" Jesus' teachings with conservatism. What has happened, and happened with the vast majority of LDS, is that they have seen a preponderance of gospel truths, in various forms, to various degrees, and in various contexts, within the modern conservative/libertarian political philosophies. They are simply more compatible with the gospel then any other body of ideas outside the Church in a political context.

They see virtually nothing of value in the Left, and nothing resembling gospel teachings there. They (and many other non-LDS folks) do see many of the grand ideological systems of human redemption, such as Marxism, as alternative secular religions competing with the gospel for the hearts and minds of God's children, and treat it accordingly as a major sect of the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, as prophesied would exist in the latter days.

Yes, I'm aware of this, which only goes to further my point I think. Paul and Luke, for example, expanded on Jesus' teaching by pointing out that we should not seek to obtain private property at all. The only riches that should concern us are those found in heaven, and those would come to us only through the actions of giving away "unrighteous mammon" to those in need.

As I pointed out already, they really didn't. The New Testament teaches us to focus and concentrate on, or prioritize "treasure in Heaven," or what Neal A. Maxwell termed the "care for the life of the soul," but it is also clear that material abundance follows (at different levels according to individual capacity) from living and working righteously.

Further, Jesus never mentions "private property" at all. We are to give from our hearts out of compassion for those in need. Clearly, unless it was our own private property we were giving, who's would it be? Did Jesus authorize us to pilfer the goods of this world of others in pursuit of our compassion?

Further, from an economic perspective, your interpretation hardly makes sense, as if giving everything we have away to others is the economic basis of Zion, then, quite obviously the question arises as to just where all this stuff to give away has come from. Once all we have is given away, we then are as poor as the poor we have given to. They, on the other hand, can not turn to us again for sustenance. We, as well, cannot now turn to them, as both of us are now essentially destitute.

One's property is the basis of production. Without a home, clothes on one's back, a car, money to pay a mortgage or rent, buy food, furniture, and other amenities, pay one's electric, gas, and water bill, put gas in the care, and other such things, one cannot work (unless one is either a serf, a slave, or a prison inmate).

The real problem you face here is that, without "capitalism," (the creation, saving, and investment of capital in productive economic activity), there is no giving, or charity, or Bishop's storehouse. There is only general, grinding, unrelieved poverty, and the ever present specter of stalking scarcity.