CNN and FOX News Completely Ignored Mississippi's New Anti-Gay Segregation Law

Link to RT

Mississippi law defines a “person” to include “all public and private corporations,” ThinkProgress noted. So if the bill becomes law, it would allow businesses in the state to discriminate for religious reasons.

Though the bill does not mention sexual orientation, “gay,” or gender identity, LGBT advocates see the legislation as an attempt to alienate non-straight communities.

“Before Mississippi has had the opportunity to robustly discuss the lived experiences of LGBT people, this bill would hollow out any non-discrimination protections at the local level or possible future state-wide protections,” Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign’s state legislative director, told the Washington Blade. “Just as we’ve seen in other states, this bill is bad for business, bad for the state’s reputation, and most of all, bad for Mississippians. Gov. Bryant must veto the measure.”

Mississippi does not have state or local nondiscrimination protections for LGBT persons. Human Rights Campaign said the bill could further complicate any effort at future state nondiscrimination laws, undermine licensing organizations that offer protections to LGBT individuals, and undercut public university nondiscrimination policies.

Just some more information for all you to digest regarding this.
U.S. Census Data
Mississippi pop. 2,991,207(2013)
U.S. Total pop. 316,128,839(2013)
Mississippi is @1% Total US Population
Mississippi is 1.27% Total US Size

Mississippi State Flag


Huffington Post

Mississippi is the most religious U.S. state, and is one of eight states where Gallup classifies at least half of the residents as "very religious." At the other end of the spectrum, Vermont and New Hampshire are the least religious states, and are two of the five states -- along with Maine, Massachusetts, and Alaska -- where less than 30% of all residents are very religious.

Dumb Mississippi Laws Link
Mississippi Laws:
Mississippi’s “Anti-Bloomberg Bill” will restrict towns and counties from regulating nutrition labeling.

If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person will go to jail for at least one month.

No one may bribe any athlete to “rig” a game, match, tournament, etc.

It is illegal to teach others what polygamy is.

A man may not seduce a woman by lying, and claiming he will marry her.

One may be fined up to $100 for using “profane language” in public places.

Private citizens may personally arrest any person that disturbs a church service.

Horses are not to be housed within 50 feet of any road.

Adultery or Fornication (living togeather while not married or having sex with someone that is not your spouse) results in a fine of $500 and/or 6 months in prison.

Vagrancy is punishable by either 30 days in prison or a $250 fine.

Unnatural intercourse, if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of 10 years and $10,000.

It is illegal for a male to be sexually aroused in public.

Cattle rustling is punishable by hanging.

City Laws in Mississippi:
Ridgeland:
It is unlawful for anyone to have sex in public.

Exterior burglar bars which are viewable from the street are not allowed.

Tylertown:
It is unlawful to shave in the center of main street.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Why the South looks stupid to the rest of America

. . . and I thought it was because they had the highest illiteracy rate in the USA!

reply to post by AnteBellum


Most of these are good old fashion common sense morality laws. I don't understand why liberals hate morals, god and country so much. Instead of a government of limited and enumerated powers and inalienable rights, they want a government of unlimited power who grants rights as a privilege.

Modern liberalism is at complete odds with the basic foundations of this country. You can not tax yourself into prosperity. You can't help the poor by stealing from other people. You can't be good and celebrate evil. The degeneration of morality is a celebration of evil.

Even more importantly, man does not decide what is good and right. The Bible has a phrase for that. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death.". There are absolute standards of morality, it is not a buffet where you pick and choose what morality pleases you.

If the liberals were right then Western civilization should be moving into a golden age of peace and prosperity right now. Instead we are on the brink of total destruction and collapse and even the lib.s sense something is wrong. You would think it would call for some introspection. But instead of looking at what worked for this great nation in the past we are slamming down the accelerator into the abyss.

reply to post by SevenThunders


I posted:

Mississippi Laws:
Mississippi’s “Anti-Bloomberg Bill” will restrict towns and counties from regulating nutrition labeling.
If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person will go to jail for at least one month.
No one may bribe any athlete to “rig” a game, match, tournament, etc.
It is illegal to teach others what polygamy is.
A man may not seduce a woman by lying, and claiming he will marry her.
One may be fined up to $100 for using “profane language” in public places.
Private citizens may personally arrest any person that disturbs a church service.
Horses are not to be housed within 50 feet of any road.
Adultery or Fornication (living togeather while not married or having sex with someone that is not your spouse) results in a fine of $500 and/or 6 months in prison.
Vagrancy is punishable by either 30 days in prison or a $250 fine.
Unnatural intercourse, if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of 10 years and $10,000.
It is illegal for a male to be sexually aroused in public.
Cattle rustling is punishable by hanging.

You reply:

Most of these are good old fashion common sense morality laws.

"COMMON SENSE MORALITY LAWS", I am sorry but I cannot change the title in the post above anymore, my 4 hour limit is up!

I leave you with this:

1 Peter 3:8-11 Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.

Maybe my opposition of those who are decrying this law is misunderstood. In instances where the one private party wishes to deny another, in terms of a place of business, I err on the side of the Individual; right or wrong, bigoted or Just; the Individual's choice will be felt in the market place of ideas and commerce. This rings true more so today than it did 50, 60 years ago. The explosion of instant communication and quick word of mouth augments the ideas of a free-market better than that of legislation and/or State/police action to correct what is perceived as "wrongs" by society.

For instance, rather than relying upon the State to determine what is "right" in terms of how a business accepts their clientele, the People, thru the lightning speed of instant communication can direct the free-market to stay clear of such business. Of course, the initial aim of such a business might not be widespread acceptance of all persons, but that is their Individual Right to determine what sector of commerce they wish to engage in.

That is the rational basis of how I am approaching this law, in which I find not only futile, but outside the scope of even a State Government. The notion that a Government must legislate to allow its people to do anything is contrary to the notion of the principles of our Federal system and how the Government is structured. If anything, the legislation should be a limiting document against its own power to deny such "rights" to the groups that are arbitrarily attributed to this bill.

In terms of the relationship between the People and the State, equality should reign and the private aspects of our lives should have no bearing upon any business we engage upon with the State. In private enterprise, in which the State isn't party to, except the scant regulation that is acceptable to that industry, equality is held to an accepted contract between the individuals. An example of this would be if party A was a gay couple and party B was a straight couple; so long as both parties entered a contact with say, party C, that contract should be equal in aspect to the services rendered and agreed upon terms.

If party C, the party providing services, imposes different terms to party A strictly because of their private lives, I do have a problem with that solely for the reason that if party C doesn't have any interest in treating its customers equally for their services provided, they should have never entered into that contract with said party.

Does that make sense now? Or am I simply trolling as not so subtly alluded to?


Post Script:
To answer the question asked of me; maybe because it isn't what you have made it out to be. Individual groups have attached themselves to the legislation's drafts (as I have pointed out) and have stayed clear of the actual bill (which I have posted here) in which all their concerns are negated. So maybe it didn't make headlines because the same reason that a baseball team's parade gets headlines but the sacrificed military members return home don't....

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Welcome to the thread. You have to understand my perspective on this, I am not GLBT and I do not live in Mississippi but I did create a thread in which both topics were discussed.
That has not been a pleasant experience for me here at ATS given all the personal connotations directed toward me!

Maybe my opposition of those who are decrying this law is misunderstood. In instances where the one private party wishes to deny another, in terms of a place of business, I err on the side of the Individual; right or wrong, bigoted or Just; the Individual's choice will be felt in the market place of ideas and commerce. This rings true more so today than it did 50, 60 years ago. The explosion of instant communication and quick word of mouth augments the ideas of a free-market better than that of legislation and/or State/police action to correct what is perceived as "wrongs" by society.

For instance, rather than relying upon the State to determine what is "right" in terms of how a business accepts their clientele, the People, thru the lightning speed of instant communication can direct the free-market to stay clear of such business. Of course, the initial aim of such a business might not be widespread acceptance of all persons, but that is their Individual Right to determine what sector of commerce they wish to engage in.

Though, to the greatest degree, I agree with these statements. Being a person who has worked and owned several businesses throughout my short life. There have been times I myself had to refuse work or workers due to a personal bias. For the sake of argument, let's just leave it at 'bias'(it was not sexual, religious, gender or race). With that said, where or when does it cross the line? When does personal opinion become targeted discrimination? I cannot answer that fully yet.

That is the rational basis of how I am approaching this law, in which I find not only futile, but outside the scope of even a State Government. The notion that a Government must legislate to allow its people to do anything is contrary to the notion of the principles of our Federal system and how the Government is structured. If anything, the legislation should be a limiting document against its own power to deny such "rights" to the groups that are arbitrarily attributed to this bill.

I believe you are getting at 'reverse discrimination'. It is a big problem, but there has to a method in place to protect individuals from groups or entities(religious groups, race, etc.). I am in no way justifying there methods by this but this potentially is a slippery slope that yes, can either get worse by more laws or leave dangerous gaps if not addressed.

if party A was a gay couple and party B was a straight couple; so long as both parties entered a contact with say, party C, that contract should be equal in aspect to the services rendered and agreed upon terms.
If party C, the party providing services, imposes different terms to party A strictly because of their private lives, I do have a problem with that solely for the reason that if party C doesn't have any interest in treating its customers equally for their services provided, they should have never entered into that contract with said party.

A(gay) = Service by C
B(straight) = Service by C
A = B = Service by C, but only if C doesn't have any interest in treating its customers equally for their services provided, they should have never entered into that contract with said party.

I have to disagree, If party C is a hotel owner and refuses services to A, there is no contract to begin with. They shouldn't be allowed to turn people away by sheer looks alone. What if party A are two very metro-sexual(straight) co-workers that need to share a room for the night to cut costs. Looking gay and being gay are two very different things and often when people make assumptions things go bad quick, really bad.

I have read the bill a couple times now, even had a legal minded friend glance it over. The bill can be used to discriminate in certain venues and is a sneak attack on this group. Since all the trouble in recent AZ, a firestorm of condemnation could have occurred dismantling all the time and effort in concealing its true nature. Mississippi is a very religious state, with very religious lawmakers, the truth is in the statistics and if I were the type of people they are, I would have done the same thing.

Thank you, looking forward to speaking with you again. . . AB

darkbake
reply to post by SevenThunders

 

So SevenThunders, your God that you worship discriminates and hates people based on their sexual orientation? What makes you decide to worship someone with that kind of attitude?

Nope never said that, nor does the Bible say this. The Bible says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. God hates the sin but still loves the sinner. However the sin must be dealt with. God is not like a liberal permissive parent. Instead he sets a very high standard to follow. I'm not going to whitewash those standards. Fortunately the sin can be cleared and the strength can be obtained to reprogram your brain and stay holy, through God's Son Jesus Christ.

And how do you even know that this God you worship, who is promoting things at the moment like harming gays and denying science (even though if he was the real Creator he would know science) and more very destructive things is not an impostor taking the place of the God from the Bible? This current manifestation you worship seems to have a different, very evil aura.

I think you could just be worshiping either another deity or a group of humans who are taking advantage of your lack of faith in a loving God, and your ease at being deceived.

By harming gays I presume you are referring to God's judgment. Yes that is a difficult teaching, but it is hardly surprising that God enforces his moral laws just as he enforces his physical laws. If I told you that jumping off a cliff would result in bodily harm, would you be angry with me, curse God for those unreasonable restrictions and jump anyway?

In the same way God has placed moral boundaries on behavior. The punishment for them is set in the immutable laws of the universe. If you go gay, you will cause suffering in yourself and others around you. You know what they are, ranging from disease to mental health issues and ultimately to spiritual damage.

God just wants to protect yourself from those outcomes. It's perfectly reasonable, but for some reason our overlords have decided the worst possible thing anyone can do is to warn you of the consequences of moral turpitude. They have an agenda. They want demoralization, and they want you sick and dead, and some of them want to send you to hell. I actually desire the opposite outcome for you and for any gay, namely that they can enjoy God for eternity in paradise. So who is the real hater?

SevenThunders
reply to post by AnteBellum

 

Most of these are good old fashion common sense morality laws. I don't understand why liberals hate morals, god and country so much. Instead of a government of limited and enumerated powers and inalienable rights, they want a government of unlimited power who grants rights as a privilege.

I do not understand conservatives whole seek a small government but then turn around and support laws that restrict liberty by empowering the government. From the fiscal side, it costs money to incarcerate people and from the political side, it gives the government more control over the populace. In this sense, your position is illogical and hypocritical. It is illogical because it these "common sense morality laws" give the government more authority, power and jurisdiction to micro manage personal behavior.

Now, how are you going to claim to want a small government AND support policies that strengthen government? In this sense, conservatism consistently acts against it's own stated agenda. So if you are frustrated with liberalism, the feeling is mutual, I assure you.

Modern liberalism is at complete odds with the basic foundations of this country. You can not tax yourself into prosperity. You can't help the poor by stealing from other people. You can't be good and celebrate evil. The degeneration of morality is a celebration of evil.

Your entire argument here is hyperbolic and not based upon any evidence. Modern liberalism represents the growth of our nation from a time when people were kept like cattle and used as free labor, back then the government looked the other way while anti constitutional practices were running rampant, liberalism did not seek to conserve the status quo..

In a scope outside of religion, you cannot expect the common morality of a nation to remain hundreds of years back. The world has changed every year since Jesus walked the Earth it does not make sense to expect the last three hundred years to be different.

Now from a religious sense, tell me how it is your place or the legislatures place to judge the souls of others?

I don't think it is...

And from a Constitutional sense, how is it your place or the legislatures place to infringe upon the liberty of others?

Who is BIG GOVERNMENT in this equation???

I say the government can shove hundreds of its laws where the sun don't shine, especially common sense morality laws.

Who is BIG GOVERNMENT in this equation???

I bet you my liberal self would abolish and diminish far more authority from the government than you.

Even more importantly, man does not decide what is good and right. The Bible has a phrase for that. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death.". There are absolute standards of morality, it is not a buffet where you pick and choose what morality pleases you.

It appears to me that you are doing the exact same thing that you are criticizing other for. YOUR standards are not the word of god, who are you to think that your standards are the exact copy of gods???

What evidence do you have to say you know and understand gods intent and will?

As to the last sentence, yes, as an American you are allowed to determine your own sense of morality, Constitutionally speaking people are allowed to determine morality for yourself. It is not the governments role to infringe upon morality or liberty.

If the liberals were right then Western civilization should be moving into a golden age of peace and prosperity right now. Instead we are on the brink of total destruction and collapse and even the lib.s sense something is wrong. You would think it would call for some introspection. But instead of looking at what worked for this great nation in the past we are slamming down the accelerator into the abyss.

I think if we didn't elect George W Bush as president, the entire world would not of been thrust into the economy disaster he over saw during his tenure. It was an unprecedented event that could of been prevented or mitigated, but that administration did not believe in regulation or impeding upon the common sense morality of the bankers and money lenders. Furthermore, for the situation to have gotten that bad was nothing short or incompetence or collusion on behalf the administration and its jurisdiction. So yes, something is wrong, America made a big mistake when they elected George W Bush and the global economy is still reeling from the events of the day. Those have been the Earthy consequences, we are paying the price, what do you expect???

Conclusion

Very recently, our government ruined the state of business across the entire globe, it makes sense that Americans are still suffering, as we are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government

ownbestenemy
Maybe my opposition of those who are decrying this law is misunderstood. In instances where the one private party wishes to deny another, in terms of a place of business, I err on the side of the Individual; right or wrong, bigoted or Just; the Individual's choice will be felt in the market place of ideas and commerce. This rings true more so today than it did 50, 60 years ago. The explosion of instant communication and quick word of mouth augments the ideas of a free-market better than that of legislation and/or State/police action to correct what is perceived as "wrongs" by society.

For instance, rather than relying upon the State to determine what is "right" in terms of how a business accepts their clientele, the People, thru the lightning speed of instant communication can direct the free-market to stay clear of such business. Of course, the initial aim of such a business might not be widespread acceptance of all persons, but that is their Individual Right to determine what sector of commerce they wish to engage in.

That is the rational basis of how I am approaching this law, in which I find not only futile, but outside the scope of even a State Government. The notion that a Government must legislate to allow its people to do anything is contrary to the notion of the principles of our Federal system and how the Government is structured. If anything, the legislation should be a limiting document against its own power to deny such "rights" to the groups that are arbitrarily attributed to this bill.

In terms of the relationship between the People and the State, equality should reign and the private aspects of our lives should have no bearing upon any business we engage upon with the State. In private enterprise, in which the State isn't party to, except the scant regulation that is acceptable to that industry, equality is held to an accepted contract between the individuals. An example of this would be if party A was a gay couple and party B was a straight couple; so long as both parties entered a contact with say, party C, that contract should be equal in aspect to the services rendered and agreed upon terms.

If party C, the party providing services, imposes different terms to party A strictly because of their private lives, I do have a problem with that solely for the reason that if party C doesn't have any interest in treating its customers equally for their services provided, they should have never entered into that contract with said party.

Does that make sense now? Or am I simply trolling as not so subtly alluded to?


Post Script:
To answer the question asked of me; maybe because it isn't what you have made it out to be. Individual groups have attached themselves to the legislation's drafts (as I have pointed out) and have stayed clear of the actual bill (which I have posted here) in which all their concerns are negated. So maybe it didn't make headlines because the same reason that a baseball team's parade gets headlines but the sacrificed military members return home don't....

edit on 14-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

Now yours is a perspective more aligned with the stated goals of conservatism. In this case it is right to side with the individual because the market can (FINALLY) effectively broadcast its power in smaller locales. In this case my brand of liberalism and your brand of conservatism are very well aligned.

I also think that the shop owner should be free to express his religious freedom as it pertains to creating a highly symbolic prop for what can be interpreted as the most important religious ritual in society. It is not right to make someone do something that could severely violate their sense of morality, even if I might think that morality is bigoted.

AnteBellum
Welcome to the thread. You have to understand my perspective on this, I am not GLBT and I do not live in Mississippi but I did create a thread in which both topics were discussed.

I dropped your perceived notion that I was being obtuse, so I would appreciate that you would too. I have been in this thread offering my opinion and asking tough questions and because you didn't like them or took them in a projected manner in which they were never intended doesn't mean I don't understand your perceptive; in fact, I came here with a fairly objective stance on the notion by explicitly and intentionally not including any labels such as religion, gender or race. I am sorry that in other threads you were subjected to such, but I am not them.

That is all I will say about that.

Though, to the greatest degree, I agree with these statements. Being a person who has worked and owned several businesses throughout my short life. There have been times I myself had to refuse work or workers due to a personal bias. For the sake of argument, let's just leave it at 'bias'(it was not sexual, religious, gender or race). With that said, where or when does it cross the line? When does personal opinion become targeted discrimination? I cannot answer that fully yet.

Bias is a natural condition of being human and is intensified as we socialize and form groups, pacts, associations, etc. I am personally biased against people who cannot view a situation objectively. I find their arguments repulsive and counter-productive to handling a problem or situation. Of course, by being so biased against it, I will inevitably miss an important point.

That said, you or I have that natural right to associate and conduct business with those that we wish. For a business owner, limiting their appeal or desire in the market only hurts them. There are of course instances when this was more widespread and more institutionalized. The key though, was it was from the top-down that such discrimination was actually legislated, but ultimately even before it was revoked, market forces and public opinion drove much of the widespread discrimination out.

I believe you are getting at 'reverse discrimination'. It is a big problem, but there has to a method in place to protect individuals from groups or entities(religious groups, race, etc.). I am in no way justifying there methods by this but this potentially is a slippery slope that yes, can either get worse by more laws or leave dangerous gaps if not addressed.

The method to protect individuals is through due process. There also needs to be equal protection for the individuals, who happen to be in the form of an association (and which the same protections afforded to them as individuals is applied to the association).

A(gay) = Service by C
B(straight) = Service by C
A = B = Service by C, but only if C doesn't have any interest in treating its customers equally for their services provided, they should have never entered into that contract with said party.

I have to disagree, If party C is a hotel owner and refuses services to A, there is no contract to begin with. They shouldn't be allowed to turn people away by sheer looks alone. What if party A are two very metro-sexual(straight) co-workers that need to share a room for the night to cut costs. Looking gay and being gay are two very different things and often when people make assumptions things go bad quick, really bad.

To some degree, I can understand what you are saying in the above paragraph. I was speaking of exsisting contracts already established. I will modify it as follows:

A rents a room from C for $10/night. B also enjoys this same rate. For some reason, during the duration of the contract, C believes party A to be gay and upon checkout, charges him $50/night or kicks them out of the room before the contract is completed. I believe that to be wrong and that is the basics of contract law, which typically doesn't see any color, race, gender or sexuality once applied.

In its application though, if A rents for $10/night and a few seconds later, B is charged $20/night, does party B get to claim there was discrimination? There are so many factors at play and to instantly seek answers via legislation or "law" to ensure both A and B get the same rate; regardless of market-forces in play, no longer protects C. Rob Mary to pay Peter and deny Paul.

Continuing with the hypothetical, C is now forced via the State to disregard market forces under threat of being accused of discrimination, when they may have just raised the rates because they have one room left. Increased demand means the supply is low and that means it creates a scarcity of resources; prices go up.

I sidetracked a bit.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I dropped your perceived notion that I was being obtuse, so I would appreciate that you would too. I have been in this thread offering my opinion and asking tough questions and because you didn't like them or took them in a projected manner in which they were never intended doesn't mean I don't understand your perceptive; in fact, I came here with a fairly objective stance on the notion by explicitly and intentionally not including any labels such as religion, gender or race. I am sorry that in other threads you were subjected to such, but I am not them.

It really had nothing to do with me liking your questions or not. I just became overwhelmed from the anger directed toward me, all at once, for an issue I am not really part of(not gay or MS resident). My issue has and still is the MSM. I never had an issue otherwise here on ATS, most are civil, it was just this thread and messages people sent from it. Unfortunately you popped on right after the 'should be burned at the stake for heresy' comment in which I lumped most of you all together at that point.
Ironic how my personal bias got the better of me.

As what you said about being objective I completely agree. But in questioning this ideal, personally I have come to the ultimate conclusion that it is impossible for humans to achieve. Thinking objectively about thinking objectively, environmental factors, upbringing, race, location, education, everything we see and touch from the moment we are aware influences our decisions. We can try to achieve this state, but somehow it will always fall short of 'true objectivism'.

As for the latter part of your post, there is still the matter of being able to initially refuse someone for being different. Sure we all have the right to do this, but refusing service to someone who is drunk or disorderly is very different then refusing someone because they are black, gay, jewish, or female.
I can see where you are getting at though, years ago there was only race, sex and religion to worry about, in terms of discrimination. Somehow GLBT have added themselves to the pot, they created there own subclass and then screamed when others disapproved. I think we all need to get used to this for these subclasses will continue to rise. For example, if I were to marry an android, as real as it gets but still not human, I will be creating another subclass for discrimination against. We both know it's just a matter of time.
A line needs to be drawn in the sand now. Freedom should be expressed and delivered to all, if we give people the freedom to practice religion, then those individuals practicing it must also give others the freedom back in return, but they aren't. I have the freedom to create a religion based on hate but it doesn't give me the right to go out and infringe on others.
It is unfortunate that our government must make laws that do just this or how others pervert them for there own agendas. Personally, as I walk the streets I feel much better seeing all those around me as friends and not enemies of my middle age ideals.
I'm ranting now, sorry. If you would like to break the bill down to its simplest form, go for it but it still is pretty clear to me.
Do what you want in the name of religion and you won't get in trouble!

"To provide that state action shall not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion."

State Action(n) State action is action, by which a government or the persons having governing authorities violates the civil rights of an individual, claiming a legal right on anything connected to such actions. For example arresting a person on the ground of preventive custody. State Action gives a right to sue the government for its wrongful actions.

bur·den (bûr′dn)n.
1. Something that is carried.
2.
a. Something that is emotionally difficult to bear.
b. A source of great worry or stress; weight: The burden of economic sacrifice rests on the workers of the plant.
3. A responsibility or duty: The burden of organizing the campaign fell to me.
4. Nautical
a. The amount of cargo that a vessel can carry.
b. The weight of the cargo carried by a vessel at one time.
5. The amount of a disease-causing entity present in an organism.
tr.v. bur·dened, bur·den·ing, bur·dens
1. To weigh down; oppress.
2. To load or overload.

burden n. anything that results in a restrictive load upon something. This is not meant in a tangible sense, but includes a "burden" on interstate commerce (which is any matter which limits, restricts or is onerous such as a license of fee for passage), and "burdens" on land such as zoning restrictions or the right of a neighbor to pass over the property to reach his home (easement).

Burden - Noun
1: something that is a duty, obligation, or responsibility

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


Morality laws are not inconsistent with limited government. Otherwise this country would never have been founded and been successful. In fact without morality our form of government does not work, as we are now seeing.

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

You ask for proof and it is abundant. I actually don't understand why liberals never look for it. The economic virtues of liberty can be measured by the outcomes of choosing socialism or any other state heavy policy. Venezuela is a beautiful example of this. It is a country awash with oil, a perfect climate for agriculture and an abundance of other natural resources. It once had a thriving middle class. Now, however, due to Marxist redistribution policies, you have to wait in a line 4 miles long to get a small parcel of food. Violent criminals run rampant and government approved Marxist gangs rule over terrorized villages.

If heavy government handouts eliminated poverty than Detroit would be a paradise instead of a wasteland. Detroit has received billions in federal handouts to no effect on the environment. Indeed if you pay crack whores to pop out babies, it's hard to imagine a good outcome. But stopping that practice would require making moral judgment and apparently we can't do that.

No anything is good as long as it feels good. That's why we are normalizing potheads, adultery, single mothers and homosexuality. Do you liberals really think that you can proceed down that path with no consequences? Do you not see the consequences already or must we receive God's judgment as some prophets have already pronounced. (See for example Dr. Owuor.)

You call me judgmental for simply pointing out the obvious. Yet all I want is for you, yes even you liberals, to not get yourself destroyed by an imploding civilization, even if you created the implosion. I do not wish for you to suffer the inevitable doom. For that sentiment I am apparently a bigot.

SevenThunders
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

Morality laws are not inconsistent with limited government. Otherwise this country would never have been founded and been successful. In fact without morality our form of government does not work, as we are now seeing.

Morality laws can be inconsistent with liberty and limited government, certainly. If my pursuit of happiness does not fit your sense of morality, then "your" laws are infringing on my freedom. Furthermore those laws empower elected officials to make moral decisions for people who might not ascribe to the beliefs of elected officials. This is essentially the danger of democracy/mob rule playing out. Let us say that your district is taken over by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they pass morality laws that align with their religion but not with yours, I believe your perspective empowers the government to force you to adopt Jehovah's Witness standards. They write the laws, they are in power, where is your freedom to act contrary to Jehovahs Witness theology if it is written into the law???

I do agree with you about morality severely lacking in our society, but I think I put more stock into behavior than I do religion itself. It is very easy for a wicked person to hide behind religion or religious rhetoric and then turn around and defy the lessons and principles that Jesus LIVED. To be honest this is why I cannot be a "conservative", I am much more interested in helping the meager and the weak, than I am interested in giving the wealthy more tax breaks and less business regulations/rules/laws.


In fact, I think American conservatism is directly at odds with Jesus' teachings ESPECIALLY as it involves social activism. Jesus did not ask people if they worked when they were hungry, JESUS FED PEOPLE REGARDLESS. Jesus did not put a condition on helping or feeding people, POLITICIANS DID. Also Jesus did not align with the rich, there are no stories of Jesus hanging out with "the makers" and "producers", but he sure did do a lot of work for the people who had very little and he dedicated his energy to the meager, NOT the successful.

I know you might be upset by my perspective but I ask that you will read it several times to at least understand that I am moral, thoughtful and worth listening to. In this situation god might of put me here to help you, or visa versa, who knows??? And that is my point...

Back to my perspective.

The GOP dedicates its energy to helping the successful further, and in my opinion successful people usually do not need the help. Also, Jesus surely didn't chastise people and call them "takers" and "users". People are not takers and makers, people are god's children and policies that make gods children to suffer, go hungry or languish are contrary to my morality. In practice, and as best I can, my morality does not clash with the actions of Jesus.

Now, I think liberals clash with the old testament and church doctrine in regards to sex and sexuality, I do observes Christs deeds as the most important consideration as to what is the example of Christianity in DEED. Since you are a Christian you should here my testimony as to why conservative priorities miss the mark.

Christ did not raid brothels and gay bathhouses.
He did not devote his life to expelling foreigners and immigrants.
Neither did Christ focus his energy on protecting the wealth of the businessmen and bankers.
Nor did he ask hungry people for money or labor, he fed them because they were children of god, because they were in fact his brothers.
Jesus did not spend his days smacking the hands of the wicked or policing the downtrodden, he devoted his time to helping the suffering.
Look to the deeds of Jesus and see that he did not lead a punitive life. He lead a compassionate life, in all deeds.
You cannot believe in Christ and categorically oppose deeds that can help the sick, feed the poor and comfort the dying.
Jesus did not stand there and criticize the hungry person for their lack of competence, his energy was dedicated to resolving the person's plight.
Rather than learning faith from a man on a pulpit, learn faith from the one you are worshiping.
Progress his works with your own hands, in your own deeds, on the same Earth he roamed.


I think the conservative actions against the meager and weak is a direct violation of Christianity, but I think the power of money and greed blinds the flock far more than conservative Christian seem to understand. People suffer when you don't extend their unemployment benefits, people suffer when you cut off their access to food, people suffer when you take away their ability to seek all manner medical treatment (not just emergency care). These latter things upset me because of my morality, my affinity and humble respect for Christ.

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

You ask for proof and it is abundant. I actually don't understand why liberals never look for it. The economic virtues of liberty can be measured by the outcomes of choosing socialism or any other state heavy policy.

Well here is what I am talking about, you are concerned about money (economics) above people. What motivates my politics and morality is people, not economics or money. If you are hungry, you should eat, if you are sick you should be care for, PERIOD. But can you see that you being a Christian thought about money first??? I am not trying to dog on you, but it think you should focus on helping people instead.

As far as state heavy policy, I am not big on the part of the government that is used to police and penalize, that is well over half the government. I would rather keep the part of government that helps people and get rid of much of it.

Venezuela is a beautiful example of this. It is a country awash with oil, a perfect climate for agriculture and an abundance of other natural resources. It once had a thriving middle class. Now, however, due to Marxist redistribution policies, you have to wait in a line 4 miles long to get a small parcel of food. Violent criminals run rampant and government approved Marxist gangs rule over terrorized villages.

That does sound awful, I do not know any liberals who would support that kind of regime or policy. Most of the people I know rather enjoy their freedom to work as they please and pursue better lives. I am not sure what kind of people you know, but most of the Americans I know feel that work gives life a sense of purpose and direction.

If heavy government handouts eliminated poverty than Detroit would be a paradise instead of a wasteland.

On the other hand, if charity ended poverty, Africa would look like Beverly Hills by now. I think ALL efforts to help the meager and hungry are good efforts, economics and money are made up constructs, people are gods children. What do you think is more important? A living child getting to eat, or printing up more fake dollar bills? This is where I suggest you shift your focus from money to people.

Detroit has received billions in federal handouts to no effect on the environment. Indeed if you pay crack whores to pop out babies, it's hard to imagine a good outcome. But stopping that practice would require making moral judgment and apparently we can't do that.

I suspect that your are right, but I think I understand that you equate morality with being punitive, is that correct? I do however, think sometimes you have to let things work themselves out and Detroit is one of those.

No anything is good as long as it feels good. That's why we are normalizing potheads, adultery, single mothers and homosexuality. Do you liberals really think that you can proceed down that path with no consequences? Do you not see the consequences already or must we receive God's judgment as some prophets have already pronounced. (See for example Dr. Owuor.)

I agree with your first statement. However I think people often times have to sin to find salvation, I know many Christians who found Christ exactly because they were wicked and on the wrong path. It is not possible to understand the will of god and again I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should focus on the meager, weak and poor, Jesus did not go around smacking crackheads and stoning whores, he helped people. So why are you focused on things that Jesus did not focus upon?
You sure can do more helping than you can being angry about other peoples failings. Again, look at your focus and how it differs from Christs example. I think you are going to the wrong church if this is how you have been informed to worship. I think belief and action have to be aligned to really be a Christian, but I think some preachers tell you that faith is all that matters. How can your fondness for economics appeal more to your than the examples of Christ?

spurgeonatorsrevenge

SevenThunders
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

Morality laws are not inconsistent with limited government. Otherwise this country would never have been founded and been successful. In fact without morality our form of government does not work, as we are now seeing.

Morality laws can be inconsistent with liberty and limited government, certainly. If my pursuit of happiness does not fit your sense of morality, then "your" laws are infringing on my freedom. Furthermore those laws empower elected officials to make moral decisions for people who might not ascribe to the beliefs of elected officials. This is essentially the danger of democracy/mob rule playing out. Let us say that your district is taken over by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they pass morality laws that align with their religion but not with yours, I believe your perspective empowers the government to force you to adopt Jehovah's Witness standards. They write the laws, they are in power, where is your freedom to act contrary to Jehovahs Witness theology if it is written into the law???

I do agree with you about morality severely lacking in our society, but I think I put more stock into behavior than I do religion itself. It is very easy for a wicked person to hide behind religion or religious rhetoric and then turn around and defy the lessons and principles that Jesus LIVED. To be honest this is why I cannot be a "conservative", I am much more interested in helping the meager and the weak, than I am interested in giving the wealthy more tax breaks and less business regulations/rules/laws.


In fact, I think American conservatism is directly at odds with Jesus' teachings ESPECIALLY as it involves social activism. Jesus did not ask people if they worked when they were hungry, JESUS FED PEOPLE REGARDLESS. Jesus did not put a condition on helping or feeding people, POLITICIANS DID. Also Jesus did not align with the rich, there are no stories of Jesus hanging out with "the makers" and "producers", but he sure did do a lot of work for the people who had very little and he dedicated his energy to the meager, NOT the successful.

I know you might be upset by my perspective but I ask that you will read it several times to at least understand that I am moral, thoughtful and worth listening to. In this situation god might of put me here to help you, or visa versa, who knows??? And that is my point...

Back to my perspective.

The GOP dedicates its energy to helping the successful further, and in my opinion successful people usually do not need the help. Also, Jesus surely didn't chastise people and call them "takers" and "users". People are not takers and makers, people are god's children and policies that make gods children to suffer, go hungry or languish are contrary to my morality. In practice, and as best I can, my morality does not clash with the actions of Jesus.

Now, I think liberals clash with the old testament and church doctrine in regards to sex and sexuality, I do observes Christs deeds as the most important consideration as to what is the example of Christianity in DEED. Since you are a Christian you should here my testimony as to why conservative priorities miss the mark.

Christ did not raid brothels and gay bathhouses.
He did not devote his life to expelling foreigners and immigrants.
Neither did Christ focus his energy on protecting the wealth of the businessmen and bankers.
Nor did he ask hungry people for money or labor, he fed them because they were children of god, because they were in fact his brothers.
Jesus did not spend his days smacking the hands of the wicked or policing the downtrodden, he devoted his time to helping the suffering.
Look to the deeds of Jesus and see that he did not lead a punitive life. He lead a compassionate life, in all deeds.
You cannot believe in Christ and categorically oppose deeds that can help the sick, feed the poor and comfort the dying.
Jesus did not stand there and criticize the hungry person for their lack of competence, his energy was dedicated to resolving the person's plight.
Rather than learning faith from a man on a pulpit, learn faith from the one you are worshiping.
Progress his works with your own hands, in your own deeds, on the same Earth he roamed.


I think the conservative actions against the meager and weak is a direct violation of Christianity, but I think the power of money and greed blinds the flock far more than conservative Christian seem to understand. People suffer when you don't extend their unemployment benefits, people suffer when you cut off their access to food, people suffer when you take away their ability to seek all manner medical treatment (not just emergency care). These latter things upset me because of my morality, my affinity and humble respect for Christ.

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

You ask for proof and it is abundant. I actually don't understand why liberals never look for it. The economic virtues of liberty can be measured by the outcomes of choosing socialism or any other state heavy policy.

Well here is what I am talking about, you are concerned about money (economics) above people. What motivates my politics and morality is people, not economics or money. If you are hungry, you should eat, if you are sick you should be care for, PERIOD. But can you see that you being a Christian thought about money first??? I am not trying to dog on you, but it think you should focus on helping people instead.

As far as state heavy policy, I am not big on the part of the government that is used to police and penalize, that is well over half the government. I would rather keep the part of government that helps people and get rid of much of it.

Venezuela is a beautiful example of this. It is a country awash with oil, a perfect climate for agriculture and an abundance of other natural resources. It once had a thriving middle class. Now, however, due to Marxist redistribution policies, you have to wait in a line 4 miles long to get a small parcel of food. Violent criminals run rampant and government approved Marxist gangs rule over terrorized villages.

That does sound awful, I do not know any liberals who would support that kind of regime or policy. Most of the people I know rather enjoy their freedom to work as they please and pursue better lives. I am not sure what kind of people you know, but most of the Americans I know feel that work gives life a sense of purpose and direction.

If heavy government handouts eliminated poverty than Detroit would be a paradise instead of a wasteland.

On the other hand, if charity ended poverty, Africa would look like Beverly Hills by now. I think ALL efforts to help the meager and hungry are good efforts, economics and money are made up constructs, people are gods children. What do you think is more important? A living child getting to eat, or printing up more fake dollar bills? This is where I suggest you shift your focus from money to people.

Detroit has received billions in federal handouts to no effect on the environment. Indeed if you pay crack whores to pop out babies, it's hard to imagine a good outcome. But stopping that practice would require making moral judgment and apparently we can't do that.

I suspect that your are right, but I think I understand that you equate morality with being punitive, is that correct? I do however, think sometimes you have to let things work themselves out and Detroit is one of those.

No anything is good as long as it feels good. That's why we are normalizing potheads, adultery, single mothers and homosexuality. Do you liberals really think that you can proceed down that path with no consequences? Do you not see the consequences already or must we receive God's judgment as some prophets have already pronounced. (See for example Dr. Owuor.)

I agree with your first statement. However I think people often times have to sin to find salvation, I know many Christians who found Christ exactly because they were wicked and on the wrong path. It is not possible to understand the will of god and again I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should focus on the meager, weak and poor, Jesus did not go around smacking crackheads and stoning whores, he helped people. So why are you focused on things that Jesus did not focus upon?
You sure can do more helping than you can being angry about other peoples failings. Again, look at your focus and how it differs from Christs example. I think you are going to the wrong church if this is how you have been informed to worship. I think belief and action have to be aligned to really be a Christian, but I think some preachers tell you that faith is all that matters. How can your fondness for economics appeal more to your than the examples of Christ?

However, is not a law mandating someone to serve some one else exactly what you disagree with? The majority mandating their morality on the minority?

Christ did advocate taking care of the poor and the sick. However, he advocated his followers to do it themselves--not use the coercive power of the state to force others to do it for them. If I give a poor man a meal, I am doing Christ's work. If I force you to give than man a meal, I am not.

Therein lies the difference.

NavyDoc

spurgeonatorsrevenge

SevenThunders
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

Morality laws are not inconsistent with limited government. Otherwise this country would never have been founded and been successful. In fact without morality our form of government does not work, as we are now seeing.

Morality laws can be inconsistent with liberty and limited government, certainly. If my pursuit of happiness does not fit your sense of morality, then "your" laws are infringing on my freedom. Furthermore those laws empower elected officials to make moral decisions for people who might not ascribe to the beliefs of elected officials. This is essentially the danger of democracy/mob rule playing out. Let us say that your district is taken over by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they pass morality laws that align with their religion but not with yours, I believe your perspective empowers the government to force you to adopt Jehovah's Witness standards. They write the laws, they are in power, where is your freedom to act contrary to Jehovahs Witness theology if it is written into the law???

I do agree with you about morality severely lacking in our society, but I think I put more stock into behavior than I do religion itself. It is very easy for a wicked person to hide behind religion or religious rhetoric and then turn around and defy the lessons and principles that Jesus LIVED. To be honest this is why I cannot be a "conservative", I am much more interested in helping the meager and the weak, than I am interested in giving the wealthy more tax breaks and less business regulations/rules/laws.


In fact, I think American conservatism is directly at odds with Jesus' teachings ESPECIALLY as it involves social activism. Jesus did not ask people if they worked when they were hungry, JESUS FED PEOPLE REGARDLESS. Jesus did not put a condition on helping or feeding people, POLITICIANS DID. Also Jesus did not align with the rich, there are no stories of Jesus hanging out with "the makers" and "producers", but he sure did do a lot of work for the people who had very little and he dedicated his energy to the meager, NOT the successful.

I know you might be upset by my perspective but I ask that you will read it several times to at least understand that I am moral, thoughtful and worth listening to. In this situation god might of put me here to help you, or visa versa, who knows??? And that is my point...

Back to my perspective.

The GOP dedicates its energy to helping the successful further, and in my opinion successful people usually do not need the help. Also, Jesus surely didn't chastise people and call them "takers" and "users". People are not takers and makers, people are god's children and policies that make gods children to suffer, go hungry or languish are contrary to my morality. In practice, and as best I can, my morality does not clash with the actions of Jesus.

Now, I think liberals clash with the old testament and church doctrine in regards to sex and sexuality, I do observes Christs deeds as the most important consideration as to what is the example of Christianity in DEED. Since you are a Christian you should here my testimony as to why conservative priorities miss the mark.

Christ did not raid brothels and gay bathhouses.
He did not devote his life to expelling foreigners and immigrants.
Neither did Christ focus his energy on protecting the wealth of the businessmen and bankers.
Nor did he ask hungry people for money or labor, he fed them because they were children of god, because they were in fact his brothers.
Jesus did not spend his days smacking the hands of the wicked or policing the downtrodden, he devoted his time to helping the suffering.
Look to the deeds of Jesus and see that he did not lead a punitive life. He lead a compassionate life, in all deeds.
You cannot believe in Christ and categorically oppose deeds that can help the sick, feed the poor and comfort the dying.
Jesus did not stand there and criticize the hungry person for their lack of competence, his energy was dedicated to resolving the person's plight.
Rather than learning faith from a man on a pulpit, learn faith from the one you are worshiping.
Progress his works with your own hands, in your own deeds, on the same Earth he roamed.


I think the conservative actions against the meager and weak is a direct violation of Christianity, but I think the power of money and greed blinds the flock far more than conservative Christian seem to understand. People suffer when you don't extend their unemployment benefits, people suffer when you cut off their access to food, people suffer when you take away their ability to seek all manner medical treatment (not just emergency care). These latter things upset me because of my morality, my affinity and humble respect for Christ.

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

You ask for proof and it is abundant. I actually don't understand why liberals never look for it. The economic virtues of liberty can be measured by the outcomes of choosing socialism or any other state heavy policy.

Well here is what I am talking about, you are concerned about money (economics) above people. What motivates my politics and morality is people, not economics or money. If you are hungry, you should eat, if you are sick you should be care for, PERIOD. But can you see that you being a Christian thought about money first??? I am not trying to dog on you, but it think you should focus on helping people instead.

As far as state heavy policy, I am not big on the part of the government that is used to police and penalize, that is well over half the government. I would rather keep the part of government that helps people and get rid of much of it.

Venezuela is a beautiful example of this. It is a country awash with oil, a perfect climate for agriculture and an abundance of other natural resources. It once had a thriving middle class. Now, however, due to Marxist redistribution policies, you have to wait in a line 4 miles long to get a small parcel of food. Violent criminals run rampant and government approved Marxist gangs rule over terrorized villages.

That does sound awful, I do not know any liberals who would support that kind of regime or policy. Most of the people I know rather enjoy their freedom to work as they please and pursue better lives. I am not sure what kind of people you know, but most of the Americans I know feel that work gives life a sense of purpose and direction.

If heavy government handouts eliminated poverty than Detroit would be a paradise instead of a wasteland.

On the other hand, if charity ended poverty, Africa would look like Beverly Hills by now. I think ALL efforts to help the meager and hungry are good efforts, economics and money are made up constructs, people are gods children. What do you think is more important? A living child getting to eat, or printing up more fake dollar bills? This is where I suggest you shift your focus from money to people.

Detroit has received billions in federal handouts to no effect on the environment. Indeed if you pay crack whores to pop out babies, it's hard to imagine a good outcome. But stopping that practice would require making moral judgment and apparently we can't do that.

I suspect that your are right, but I think I understand that you equate morality with being punitive, is that correct? I do however, think sometimes you have to let things work themselves out and Detroit is one of those.

No anything is good as long as it feels good. That's why we are normalizing potheads, adultery, single mothers and homosexuality. Do you liberals really think that you can proceed down that path with no consequences? Do you not see the consequences already or must we receive God's judgment as some prophets have already pronounced. (See for example Dr. Owuor.)

I agree with your first statement. However I think people often times have to sin to find salvation, I know many Christians who found Christ exactly because they were wicked and on the wrong path. It is not possible to understand the will of god and again I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should focus on the meager, weak and poor, Jesus did not go around smacking crackheads and stoning whores, he helped people. So why are you focused on things that Jesus did not focus upon?
You sure can do more helping than you can being angry about other peoples failings. Again, look at your focus and how it differs from Christs example. I think you are going to the wrong church if this is how you have been informed to worship. I think belief and action have to be aligned to really be a Christian, but I think some preachers tell you that faith is all that matters. How can your fondness for economics appeal more to your than the examples of Christ?

However, is not a law mandating someone to serve some one else exactly what you disagree with? The majority mandating their morality on the minority?

Christ did advocate taking care of the poor and the sick. However, he advocated his followers to do it themselves--not use the coercive power of the state to force others to do it for them. If I give a poor man a meal, I am doing Christ's work. If I force you to give than man a meal, I am not.

Therein lies the difference.

I do not think that the cake maker should have to bake the cake if it violates his principles.

Christ DID NOT distinguish between how aid is provided, that has been the work of modern politicians and activists who are more concerned about money than people. I suspect people assign their motives upon Jesus, but I see no evidence that Jesus would worry about money (money that is fake I might add) over the physical well being of people. Again, did Jesus ever ask people if they were lazy or not??? Did he verify that they were looking for a job? Did he require anything other than the need itself? I cannot say that he did, and I think you realize the same.

If you do something to take away food from 2 million people, in the end you still took away food from 2 million people. In a tangible way, people suffer as a result. I think it is spiritually reckless to assume that god is unable to understand who goes out of their way to block the aid to the suffering. Money is a good excuse to avert your eyes and let suffering continue endlessly, it was used in Jesus' time and it is used today. Like I said to the other member, (if you are a Christian) note that your first thought was to money, not the suffering of Americans. this is not to penalize, but rather to make you aware. If money is always your first concern, you are not understanding the message IMO. If you side with money before people, you are working against the message, not for it.

spurgeonatorsrevenge

NavyDoc

spurgeonatorsrevenge

SevenThunders
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

Morality laws are not inconsistent with limited government. Otherwise this country would never have been founded and been successful. In fact without morality our form of government does not work, as we are now seeing.

Morality laws can be inconsistent with liberty and limited government, certainly. If my pursuit of happiness does not fit your sense of morality, then "your" laws are infringing on my freedom. Furthermore those laws empower elected officials to make moral decisions for people who might not ascribe to the beliefs of elected officials. This is essentially the danger of democracy/mob rule playing out. Let us say that your district is taken over by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they pass morality laws that align with their religion but not with yours, I believe your perspective empowers the government to force you to adopt Jehovah's Witness standards. They write the laws, they are in power, where is your freedom to act contrary to Jehovahs Witness theology if it is written into the law???

I do agree with you about morality severely lacking in our society, but I think I put more stock into behavior than I do religion itself. It is very easy for a wicked person to hide behind religion or religious rhetoric and then turn around and defy the lessons and principles that Jesus LIVED. To be honest this is why I cannot be a "conservative", I am much more interested in helping the meager and the weak, than I am interested in giving the wealthy more tax breaks and less business regulations/rules/laws.


In fact, I think American conservatism is directly at odds with Jesus' teachings ESPECIALLY as it involves social activism. Jesus did not ask people if they worked when they were hungry, JESUS FED PEOPLE REGARDLESS. Jesus did not put a condition on helping or feeding people, POLITICIANS DID. Also Jesus did not align with the rich, there are no stories of Jesus hanging out with "the makers" and "producers", but he sure did do a lot of work for the people who had very little and he dedicated his energy to the meager, NOT the successful.

I know you might be upset by my perspective but I ask that you will read it several times to at least understand that I am moral, thoughtful and worth listening to. In this situation god might of put me here to help you, or visa versa, who knows??? And that is my point...

Back to my perspective.

The GOP dedicates its energy to helping the successful further, and in my opinion successful people usually do not need the help. Also, Jesus surely didn't chastise people and call them "takers" and "users". People are not takers and makers, people are god's children and policies that make gods children to suffer, go hungry or languish are contrary to my morality. In practice, and as best I can, my morality does not clash with the actions of Jesus.

Now, I think liberals clash with the old testament and church doctrine in regards to sex and sexuality, I do observes Christs deeds as the most important consideration as to what is the example of Christianity in DEED. Since you are a Christian you should here my testimony as to why conservative priorities miss the mark.

Christ did not raid brothels and gay bathhouses.
He did not devote his life to expelling foreigners and immigrants.
Neither did Christ focus his energy on protecting the wealth of the businessmen and bankers.
Nor did he ask hungry people for money or labor, he fed them because they were children of god, because they were in fact his brothers.
Jesus did not spend his days smacking the hands of the wicked or policing the downtrodden, he devoted his time to helping the suffering.
Look to the deeds of Jesus and see that he did not lead a punitive life. He lead a compassionate life, in all deeds.
You cannot believe in Christ and categorically oppose deeds that can help the sick, feed the poor and comfort the dying.
Jesus did not stand there and criticize the hungry person for their lack of competence, his energy was dedicated to resolving the person's plight.
Rather than learning faith from a man on a pulpit, learn faith from the one you are worshiping.
Progress his works with your own hands, in your own deeds, on the same Earth he roamed.


I think the conservative actions against the meager and weak is a direct violation of Christianity, but I think the power of money and greed blinds the flock far more than conservative Christian seem to understand. People suffer when you don't extend their unemployment benefits, people suffer when you cut off their access to food, people suffer when you take away their ability to seek all manner medical treatment (not just emergency care). These latter things upset me because of my morality, my affinity and humble respect for Christ.

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

You ask for proof and it is abundant. I actually don't understand why liberals never look for it. The economic virtues of liberty can be measured by the outcomes of choosing socialism or any other state heavy policy.

Well here is what I am talking about, you are concerned about money (economics) above people. What motivates my politics and morality is people, not economics or money. If you are hungry, you should eat, if you are sick you should be care for, PERIOD. But can you see that you being a Christian thought about money first??? I am not trying to dog on you, but it think you should focus on helping people instead.

As far as state heavy policy, I am not big on the part of the government that is used to police and penalize, that is well over half the government. I would rather keep the part of government that helps people and get rid of much of it.

Venezuela is a beautiful example of this. It is a country awash with oil, a perfect climate for agriculture and an abundance of other natural resources. It once had a thriving middle class. Now, however, due to Marxist redistribution policies, you have to wait in a line 4 miles long to get a small parcel of food. Violent criminals run rampant and government approved Marxist gangs rule over terrorized villages.

That does sound awful, I do not know any liberals who would support that kind of regime or policy. Most of the people I know rather enjoy their freedom to work as they please and pursue better lives. I am not sure what kind of people you know, but most of the Americans I know feel that work gives life a sense of purpose and direction.

If heavy government handouts eliminated poverty than Detroit would be a paradise instead of a wasteland.

On the other hand, if charity ended poverty, Africa would look like Beverly Hills by now. I think ALL efforts to help the meager and hungry are good efforts, economics and money are made up constructs, people are gods children. What do you think is more important? A living child getting to eat, or printing up more fake dollar bills? This is where I suggest you shift your focus from money to people.

Detroit has received billions in federal handouts to no effect on the environment. Indeed if you pay crack whores to pop out babies, it's hard to imagine a good outcome. But stopping that practice would require making moral judgment and apparently we can't do that.

I suspect that your are right, but I think I understand that you equate morality with being punitive, is that correct? I do however, think sometimes you have to let things work themselves out and Detroit is one of those.

No anything is good as long as it feels good. That's why we are normalizing potheads, adultery, single mothers and homosexuality. Do you liberals really think that you can proceed down that path with no consequences? Do you not see the consequences already or must we receive God's judgment as some prophets have already pronounced. (See for example Dr. Owuor.)

I agree with your first statement. However I think people often times have to sin to find salvation, I know many Christians who found Christ exactly because they were wicked and on the wrong path. It is not possible to understand the will of god and again I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should focus on the meager, weak and poor, Jesus did not go around smacking crackheads and stoning whores, he helped people. So why are you focused on things that Jesus did not focus upon?
You sure can do more helping than you can being angry about other peoples failings. Again, look at your focus and how it differs from Christs example. I think you are going to the wrong church if this is how you have been informed to worship. I think belief and action have to be aligned to really be a Christian, but I think some preachers tell you that faith is all that matters. How can your fondness for economics appeal more to your than the examples of Christ?

However, is not a law mandating someone to serve some one else exactly what you disagree with? The majority mandating their morality on the minority?

Christ did advocate taking care of the poor and the sick. However, he advocated his followers to do it themselves--not use the coercive power of the state to force others to do it for them. If I give a poor man a meal, I am doing Christ's work. If I force you to give than man a meal, I am not.

Therein lies the difference.

I do not think that the cake maker should have to bake the cake if it violates his principles.

Christ DID NOT distinguish between how aid is provided, that has been the work of modern politicians and activists who are more concerned about money than people. I suspect people assign their motives upon Jesus, but I see no evidence that Jesus would worry about money (money that is fake I might add) over the physical well being of people. Again, did Jesus ever ask people if they were lazy or not??? Did he verify that they were looking for a job? Did he require anything other than the need itself? I cannot say that he did, and I think you realize the same.

If you do something to take away food from 2 million people, in the end you still took away food from 2 million people. In a tangible way, people suffer as a result. I think it is spiritually reckless to assume that god is unable to understand who goes out of their way to block the aid to the suffering. Money is a good excuse to avert your eyes and let suffering continue endlessly, it was used in Jesus' time and it is used today. Like I said to the other member, (if you are a Christian) note that your first thought was to money, not the suffering of Americans. this is not to penalize, but rather to make you aware. If money is always your first concern, you are not understanding the message IMO. If you side with money before people, you are working against the message, not for it.

On the first: sorry I must have misunderstood.

On the second, Christ did not distinguish how you are to donate, true, BUT that is how YOU donate, forcing someone else to give to charity is not Christian giving.

Christ did chastise the lazy, look at the parable of the talents.

I do look for the people first, and the best way to help the most people is to provide economic and political freedom. A confiscatory wealth redistribution plan HURTS more than it helps.

NavyDoc

spurgeonatorsrevenge

NavyDoc

spurgeonatorsrevenge

SevenThunders
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

Morality laws are not inconsistent with limited government. Otherwise this country would never have been founded and been successful. In fact without morality our form of government does not work, as we are now seeing.

Morality laws can be inconsistent with liberty and limited government, certainly. If my pursuit of happiness does not fit your sense of morality, then "your" laws are infringing on my freedom. Furthermore those laws empower elected officials to make moral decisions for people who might not ascribe to the beliefs of elected officials. This is essentially the danger of democracy/mob rule playing out. Let us say that your district is taken over by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they pass morality laws that align with their religion but not with yours, I believe your perspective empowers the government to force you to adopt Jehovah's Witness standards. They write the laws, they are in power, where is your freedom to act contrary to Jehovahs Witness theology if it is written into the law???

I do agree with you about morality severely lacking in our society, but I think I put more stock into behavior than I do religion itself. It is very easy for a wicked person to hide behind religion or religious rhetoric and then turn around and defy the lessons and principles that Jesus LIVED. To be honest this is why I cannot be a "conservative", I am much more interested in helping the meager and the weak, than I am interested in giving the wealthy more tax breaks and less business regulations/rules/laws.


In fact, I think American conservatism is directly at odds with Jesus' teachings ESPECIALLY as it involves social activism. Jesus did not ask people if they worked when they were hungry, JESUS FED PEOPLE REGARDLESS. Jesus did not put a condition on helping or feeding people, POLITICIANS DID. Also Jesus did not align with the rich, there are no stories of Jesus hanging out with "the makers" and "producers", but he sure did do a lot of work for the people who had very little and he dedicated his energy to the meager, NOT the successful.

I know you might be upset by my perspective but I ask that you will read it several times to at least understand that I am moral, thoughtful and worth listening to. In this situation god might of put me here to help you, or visa versa, who knows??? And that is my point...

Back to my perspective.

The GOP dedicates its energy to helping the successful further, and in my opinion successful people usually do not need the help. Also, Jesus surely didn't chastise people and call them "takers" and "users". People are not takers and makers, people are god's children and policies that make gods children to suffer, go hungry or languish are contrary to my morality. In practice, and as best I can, my morality does not clash with the actions of Jesus.

Now, I think liberals clash with the old testament and church doctrine in regards to sex and sexuality, I do observes Christs deeds as the most important consideration as to what is the example of Christianity in DEED. Since you are a Christian you should here my testimony as to why conservative priorities miss the mark.

Christ did not raid brothels and gay bathhouses.
He did not devote his life to expelling foreigners and immigrants.
Neither did Christ focus his energy on protecting the wealth of the businessmen and bankers.
Nor did he ask hungry people for money or labor, he fed them because they were children of god, because they were in fact his brothers.
Jesus did not spend his days smacking the hands of the wicked or policing the downtrodden, he devoted his time to helping the suffering.
Look to the deeds of Jesus and see that he did not lead a punitive life. He lead a compassionate life, in all deeds.
You cannot believe in Christ and categorically oppose deeds that can help the sick, feed the poor and comfort the dying.
Jesus did not stand there and criticize the hungry person for their lack of competence, his energy was dedicated to resolving the person's plight.
Rather than learning faith from a man on a pulpit, learn faith from the one you are worshiping.
Progress his works with your own hands, in your own deeds, on the same Earth he roamed.


I think the conservative actions against the meager and weak is a direct violation of Christianity, but I think the power of money and greed blinds the flock far more than conservative Christian seem to understand. People suffer when you don't extend their unemployment benefits, people suffer when you cut off their access to food, people suffer when you take away their ability to seek all manner medical treatment (not just emergency care). These latter things upset me because of my morality, my affinity and humble respect for Christ.

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

You ask for proof and it is abundant. I actually don't understand why liberals never look for it. The economic virtues of liberty can be measured by the outcomes of choosing socialism or any other state heavy policy.

Well here is what I am talking about, you are concerned about money (economics) above people. What motivates my politics and morality is people, not economics or money. If you are hungry, you should eat, if you are sick you should be care for, PERIOD. But can you see that you being a Christian thought about money first??? I am not trying to dog on you, but it think you should focus on helping people instead.

As far as state heavy policy, I am not big on the part of the government that is used to police and penalize, that is well over half the government. I would rather keep the part of government that helps people and get rid of much of it.

Venezuela is a beautiful example of this. It is a country awash with oil, a perfect climate for agriculture and an abundance of other natural resources. It once had a thriving middle class. Now, however, due to Marxist redistribution policies, you have to wait in a line 4 miles long to get a small parcel of food. Violent criminals run rampant and government approved Marxist gangs rule over terrorized villages.

That does sound awful, I do not know any liberals who would support that kind of regime or policy. Most of the people I know rather enjoy their freedom to work as they please and pursue better lives. I am not sure what kind of people you know, but most of the Americans I know feel that work gives life a sense of purpose and direction.

If heavy government handouts eliminated poverty than Detroit would be a paradise instead of a wasteland.

On the other hand, if charity ended poverty, Africa would look like Beverly Hills by now. I think ALL efforts to help the meager and hungry are good efforts, economics and money are made up constructs, people are gods children. What do you think is more important? A living child getting to eat, or printing up more fake dollar bills? This is where I suggest you shift your focus from money to people.

Detroit has received billions in federal handouts to no effect on the environment. Indeed if you pay crack whores to pop out babies, it's hard to imagine a good outcome. But stopping that practice would require making moral judgment and apparently we can't do that.

I suspect that your are right, but I think I understand that you equate morality with being punitive, is that correct? I do however, think sometimes you have to let things work themselves out and Detroit is one of those.

No anything is good as long as it feels good. That's why we are normalizing potheads, adultery, single mothers and homosexuality. Do you liberals really think that you can proceed down that path with no consequences? Do you not see the consequences already or must we receive God's judgment as some prophets have already pronounced. (See for example Dr. Owuor.)

I agree with your first statement. However I think people often times have to sin to find salvation, I know many Christians who found Christ exactly because they were wicked and on the wrong path. It is not possible to understand the will of god and again I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should focus on the meager, weak and poor, Jesus did not go around smacking crackheads and stoning whores, he helped people. So why are you focused on things that Jesus did not focus upon?
You sure can do more helping than you can being angry about other peoples failings. Again, look at your focus and how it differs from Christs example. I think you are going to the wrong church if this is how you have been informed to worship. I think belief and action have to be aligned to really be a Christian, but I think some preachers tell you that faith is all that matters. How can your fondness for economics appeal more to your than the examples of Christ?

However, is not a law mandating someone to serve some one else exactly what you disagree with? The majority mandating their morality on the minority?

Christ did advocate taking care of the poor and the sick. However, he advocated his followers to do it themselves--not use the coercive power of the state to force others to do it for them. If I give a poor man a meal, I am doing Christ's work. If I force you to give than man a meal, I am not.

Therein lies the difference.

I do not think that the cake maker should have to bake the cake if it violates his principles.

Christ DID NOT distinguish between how aid is provided, that has been the work of modern politicians and activists who are more concerned about money than people. I suspect people assign their motives upon Jesus, but I see no evidence that Jesus would worry about money (money that is fake I might add) over the physical well being of people. Again, did Jesus ever ask people if they were lazy or not??? Did he verify that they were looking for a job? Did he require anything other than the need itself? I cannot say that he did, and I think you realize the same.

If you do something to take away food from 2 million people, in the end you still took away food from 2 million people. In a tangible way, people suffer as a result. I think it is spiritually reckless to assume that god is unable to understand who goes out of their way to block the aid to the suffering. Money is a good excuse to avert your eyes and let suffering continue endlessly, it was used in Jesus' time and it is used today. Like I said to the other member, (if you are a Christian) note that your first thought was to money, not the suffering of Americans. this is not to penalize, but rather to make you aware. If money is always your first concern, you are not understanding the message IMO. If you side with money before people, you are working against the message, not for it.

On the first: sorry I must have misunderstood.

On the second, Christ did not distinguish how you are to donate, true, BUT that is how YOU donate, forcing someone else to give to charity is not Christian giving.

Christ did chastise the lazy, look at the parable of the talents.

I do look for the people first, and the best way to help the most people is to provide economic and political freedom. A confiscatory wealth redistribution plan HURTS more than it helps.

I think as it applies to the hungry, lost and destitute, giving is Christian even it is done through various channels, including the government and charity. Giving to the poor in America symbolizes America's commitment to Christian ideas and Christian deeds. For America to look the other way while people suffer is not Christian, in fact I think the urge to look the other way is based upon the love money which is decidedly not Christian. I cannot recall an example where Christ refused to help others because they could not pay or take care of themselves. Can you? Even if there is example, I think the evidence pointing to his commitment to helping unconditionally is far stronger than any evidence that suggests Jesus would consider economics as a condition to helping.

spurgeonatorsrevenge

NavyDoc

spurgeonatorsrevenge

NavyDoc

spurgeonatorsrevenge

SevenThunders
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

Morality laws are not inconsistent with limited government. Otherwise this country would never have been founded and been successful. In fact without morality our form of government does not work, as we are now seeing.

Morality laws can be inconsistent with liberty and limited government, certainly. If my pursuit of happiness does not fit your sense of morality, then "your" laws are infringing on my freedom. Furthermore those laws empower elected officials to make moral decisions for people who might not ascribe to the beliefs of elected officials. This is essentially the danger of democracy/mob rule playing out. Let us say that your district is taken over by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they pass morality laws that align with their religion but not with yours, I believe your perspective empowers the government to force you to adopt Jehovah's Witness standards. They write the laws, they are in power, where is your freedom to act contrary to Jehovahs Witness theology if it is written into the law???

I do agree with you about morality severely lacking in our society, but I think I put more stock into behavior than I do religion itself. It is very easy for a wicked person to hide behind religion or religious rhetoric and then turn around and defy the lessons and principles that Jesus LIVED. To be honest this is why I cannot be a "conservative", I am much more interested in helping the meager and the weak, than I am interested in giving the wealthy more tax breaks and less business regulations/rules/laws.


In fact, I think American conservatism is directly at odds with Jesus' teachings ESPECIALLY as it involves social activism. Jesus did not ask people if they worked when they were hungry, JESUS FED PEOPLE REGARDLESS. Jesus did not put a condition on helping or feeding people, POLITICIANS DID. Also Jesus did not align with the rich, there are no stories of Jesus hanging out with "the makers" and "producers", but he sure did do a lot of work for the people who had very little and he dedicated his energy to the meager, NOT the successful.

I know you might be upset by my perspective but I ask that you will read it several times to at least understand that I am moral, thoughtful and worth listening to. In this situation god might of put me here to help you, or visa versa, who knows??? And that is my point...

Back to my perspective.

The GOP dedicates its energy to helping the successful further, and in my opinion successful people usually do not need the help. Also, Jesus surely didn't chastise people and call them "takers" and "users". People are not takers and makers, people are god's children and policies that make gods children to suffer, go hungry or languish are contrary to my morality. In practice, and as best I can, my morality does not clash with the actions of Jesus.

Now, I think liberals clash with the old testament and church doctrine in regards to sex and sexuality, I do observes Christs deeds as the most important consideration as to what is the example of Christianity in DEED. Since you are a Christian you should here my testimony as to why conservative priorities miss the mark.

Christ did not raid brothels and gay bathhouses.
He did not devote his life to expelling foreigners and immigrants.
Neither did Christ focus his energy on protecting the wealth of the businessmen and bankers.
Nor did he ask hungry people for money or labor, he fed them because they were children of god, because they were in fact his brothers.
Jesus did not spend his days smacking the hands of the wicked or policing the downtrodden, he devoted his time to helping the suffering.
Look to the deeds of Jesus and see that he did not lead a punitive life. He lead a compassionate life, in all deeds.
You cannot believe in Christ and categorically oppose deeds that can help the sick, feed the poor and comfort the dying.
Jesus did not stand there and criticize the hungry person for their lack of competence, his energy was dedicated to resolving the person's plight.
Rather than learning faith from a man on a pulpit, learn faith from the one you are worshiping.
Progress his works with your own hands, in your own deeds, on the same Earth he roamed.


I think the conservative actions against the meager and weak is a direct violation of Christianity, but I think the power of money and greed blinds the flock far more than conservative Christian seem to understand. People suffer when you don't extend their unemployment benefits, people suffer when you cut off their access to food, people suffer when you take away their ability to seek all manner medical treatment (not just emergency care). These latter things upset me because of my morality, my affinity and humble respect for Christ.

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

You ask for proof and it is abundant. I actually don't understand why liberals never look for it. The economic virtues of liberty can be measured by the outcomes of choosing socialism or any other state heavy policy.

Well here is what I am talking about, you are concerned about money (economics) above people. What motivates my politics and morality is people, not economics or money. If you are hungry, you should eat, if you are sick you should be care for, PERIOD. But can you see that you being a Christian thought about money first??? I am not trying to dog on you, but it think you should focus on helping people instead.

As far as state heavy policy, I am not big on the part of the government that is used to police and penalize, that is well over half the government. I would rather keep the part of government that helps people and get rid of much of it.

Venezuela is a beautiful example of this. It is a country awash with oil, a perfect climate for agriculture and an abundance of other natural resources. It once had a thriving middle class. Now, however, due to Marxist redistribution policies, you have to wait in a line 4 miles long to get a small parcel of food. Violent criminals run rampant and government approved Marxist gangs rule over terrorized villages.

That does sound awful, I do not know any liberals who would support that kind of regime or policy. Most of the people I know rather enjoy their freedom to work as they please and pursue better lives. I am not sure what kind of people you know, but most of the Americans I know feel that work gives life a sense of purpose and direction.

If heavy government handouts eliminated poverty than Detroit would be a paradise instead of a wasteland.

On the other hand, if charity ended poverty, Africa would look like Beverly Hills by now. I think ALL efforts to help the meager and hungry are good efforts, economics and money are made up constructs, people are gods children. What do you think is more important? A living child getting to eat, or printing up more fake dollar bills? This is where I suggest you shift your focus from money to people.

Detroit has received billions in federal handouts to no effect on the environment. Indeed if you pay crack whores to pop out babies, it's hard to imagine a good outcome. But stopping that practice would require making moral judgment and apparently we can't do that.

I suspect that your are right, but I think I understand that you equate morality with being punitive, is that correct? I do however, think sometimes you have to let things work themselves out and Detroit is one of those.

No anything is good as long as it feels good. That's why we are normalizing potheads, adultery, single mothers and homosexuality. Do you liberals really think that you can proceed down that path with no consequences? Do you not see the consequences already or must we receive God's judgment as some prophets have already pronounced. (See for example Dr. Owuor.)

I agree with your first statement. However I think people often times have to sin to find salvation, I know many Christians who found Christ exactly because they were wicked and on the wrong path. It is not possible to understand the will of god and again I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. You should focus on the meager, weak and poor, Jesus did not go around smacking crackheads and stoning whores, he helped people. So why are you focused on things that Jesus did not focus upon?
You sure can do more helping than you can being angry about other peoples failings. Again, look at your focus and how it differs from Christs example. I think you are going to the wrong church if this is how you have been informed to worship. I think belief and action have to be aligned to really be a Christian, but I think some preachers tell you that faith is all that matters. How can your fondness for economics appeal more to your than the examples of Christ?

However, is not a law mandating someone to serve some one else exactly what you disagree with? The majority mandating their morality on the minority?

Christ did advocate taking care of the poor and the sick. However, he advocated his followers to do it themselves--not use the coercive power of the state to force others to do it for them. If I give a poor man a meal, I am doing Christ's work. If I force you to give than man a meal, I am not.

Therein lies the difference.

I do not think that the cake maker should have to bake the cake if it violates his principles.

Christ DID NOT distinguish between how aid is provided, that has been the work of modern politicians and activists who are more concerned about money than people. I suspect people assign their motives upon Jesus, but I see no evidence that Jesus would worry about money (money that is fake I might add) over the physical well being of people. Again, did Jesus ever ask people if they were lazy or not??? Did he verify that they were looking for a job? Did he require anything other than the need itself? I cannot say that he did, and I think you realize the same.

If you do something to take away food from 2 million people, in the end you still took away food from 2 million people. In a tangible way, people suffer as a result. I think it is spiritually reckless to assume that god is unable to understand who goes out of their way to block the aid to the suffering. Money is a good excuse to avert your eyes and let suffering continue endlessly, it was used in Jesus' time and it is used today. Like I said to the other member, (if you are a Christian) note that your first thought was to money, not the suffering of Americans. this is not to penalize, but rather to make you aware. If money is always your first concern, you are not understanding the message IMO. If you side with money before people, you are working against the message, not for it.

On the first: sorry I must have misunderstood.

On the second, Christ did not distinguish how you are to donate, true, BUT that is how YOU donate, forcing someone else to give to charity is not Christian giving.

Christ did chastise the lazy, look at the parable of the talents.

I do look for the people first, and the best way to help the most people is to provide economic and political freedom. A confiscatory wealth redistribution plan HURTS more than it helps.

I think as it applies to the hungry, lost and destitute, giving is Christian even it is done through various channels, including the government and charity. Giving to the poor in America symbolizes America's commitment to Christian ideas and Christian deeds. For America to look the other way while people suffer is not Christian, in fact I think the urge to look the other way is based upon the love money which is decidedly not Christian. I cannot recall an example where Christ refused to help others because they could not pay or take care of themselves. Can you? Even if there is example, I think the evidence pointing to his commitment to helping unconditionally is far stronger than any evidence that suggests Jesus would consider economics as a condition to helping.

First of all, we are supposed to be a secular nation, so "what Christ wanted" really does not, no should, apply to government.

I agree, Christ did help others and did not look away and encouraged others to do the same. OTOH, he did not knock Peter over the head to take his money to feed Paul either. It has nothing to do with "economics" but rather that it is wrong to force someone else to satisfy your notions of charity. I don't see Christ using coercive force anywhere, do you?

a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

I will argue that the welfare state and liberalism in general is idolatry and a sin for any christian. Liberals look to government for,
1) Provision: in terms of food stamps welfare, health care etc.
2) Compassion: The government is the chief succor of the needy and helpless.
3) Forgiveness: They empower government to assuage their guilt at the plight of the poor.
4) Happiness: Only elite intelligentsia who rule over us can create the utopia that liberals fantasize about.

In other words, government is the liberals true god, replacing actually the functioning of the real God. This is the very definition of idolatry. Moreover by passing the buck to the government, for the obligation to help the needy, the liberal avoids that personal obligation himself and instead uses the government to steal from rich people to assuage their guilt. If the liberal really wants to help the poor, they should give from their own pocket books. Is it surprising that conservatives, even poor ones, vastly out-give liberals?

Even worse the motivation to go after the rich is primarily fueled by envy, which the democrats stoke to good effect. Covetousness is of course a sin, maybe worse than homosexuality in many contexts.

Liberals have two fundamental assumptions that are completely and utterly false, which dooms all of their good intentions.
Ass. 1) Humans are basically good and well intentioned and thus if we just get the right, smart people we can enforce utopia on the entire world. In other words we can all become gods if we just try hard enough, because we are good and deserve it.
Ass. 2) There is enough money and resources to wipe out poverty. It's just a matter of a failure to redistribute it to the "worthy" (to be determined by the uber enlightened individuals from Ass. 1).

The Bible teaches instead that humans are desperately wicked and the heart is deceitful. Becoming gods on earth was satan's temptation of Eve. In fact the desire to create a man-made, God absent, utopia is what the Bible tells us will lead directly to the antichrist one world tyranny. We've seen mini versions of liberal utopias in the mass murdering machines of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

The world's per capita GDP is $9K per person. Wealth redistribution would make everyone dirt poor and there would be no money for doctors, hospitals, roads etc.

Now for the greatest irony of them all. Suppose I was a poor deluded liberal who believed in wealth redistribution and the human perfected utopia, but shockingly I was also rational and unemotional about my methods. After studying economics my first step would be to lower taxes and greatly reduce the regulation burden on industry, trying to create fair and equitable capitalist market places.

Why would I do this?

I would do this because there is overwhelming economic evidence that doing so would actually increase the net income of my god, government. In other words in order to fund my god's operations I need to grow the economy not grow taxes.

Here is but one proof of this assertion:
www.forbes.com...

The UK recently cut business tax rates. Result: Increase in revenues. So unfortunately a rational liberal should actually favor free capital markets to fund his god.

originally posted by: SevenThunders
a reply to: spurgeonatorsrevenge

I will argue that the welfare state and liberalism in general is idolatry and a sin for any christian. Liberals look to government for,
1) Provision: in terms of food stamps welfare, health care etc.
2) Compassion: The government is the chief succor of the needy and helpless.
3) Forgiveness: They empower government to assuage their guilt at the plight of the poor.
4) Happiness: Only elite intelligentsia who rule over us can create the utopia that liberals fantasize about.

So I'm guessing you don't frequent the United Church a bunch.

Your posts make me so happy that civilised countries legislate a separation between church and state. Theocracies suck, eh?

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
So I'm guessing you don't frequent the United Church a bunch.

Your posts make me so happy that civilised countries legislate a separation between church and state. Theocracies suck, eh?

Fortunately the United States has never passed legislation separating church and state and that phrase does not appear in the US constitution. Even more ironically when Thomas Jefferson talks about the separation of church and state he was arguing that said separation would protect the church from out of control government, not the other way around.

Of course now we do have an established state religion, atheism. It is enforced in our schools and throughout most government activity. Doesn't Canada though actually have a state religion, just like mother England?