REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Democrats' secret budget weapon: Jesus

POSTED BY: THEHAPPYTRADER
UPDATED: Thursday, April 28, 2011 20:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3101
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 25, 2011 6:52 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Between clients at the moment and saw a link to this posted on facebook. I thought I'd share it here.

Quote:


For the last generation, Americans have grown accustomed to evangelical Christianity aggressively entering the arena of public life to support a raft of conservative causes -- fights over the contents of school textbooks, battles against gay employment and marriage rights, anti-abortion activism -- all of it nudging the Republican Party further and further to the right.

It is, however, far less common to see Christian ideals -- or the ideals of any religion, for that matter -- harnessed to ideas or initiatives that originate on the political left. There are reasons for this. Offering a religious rationale for policy goals threatens what for many has become the cherished principle of secular rationalism in public life. Invoking a moral basis for public goals, to many otherwise well-intentioned liberals, undermines the separation of church and state, to which they reflexively seek to repel any threat. But this comes at the cost of chronically ceding the moral high ground and a potentially galvanizing force in national politics.

It’s refreshing, therefore, to see a group like What Would Jesus Cut? amid the partisan posturing surrounding debates over the federal deficit crisis. Launched by Jim Wallis, the co-founder and CEO of Sojourners magazine, this movement aims to infuse this critical national debate with thoughtfulness about the moral priorities it reflects. To deliver the message, the campaign sends What Would Jesus Cut? bracelets and emails to congressional representatives, and questions the limited pain of national belt-tightening the "super-rich" are asked to bear under the House Republican deficit-slashing plan.

Wallis correctly notes that recently passed tax cuts benefit ted this group, adding billions of dollars to the of burden future generations whose fiscal health the Republicans otherwise claim to defend steadfastly. He also points out that the GOP plan actually called for an $8 billion increase in defense spending, while cutting $758 million from Women, Infants, and Children, a program that provides nutrition for many of the nation’s neediest souls. Clearly, the What Would Jesus Cut? movement approaches the deficit dilemma by seeking to beat swords into plowshares.



Though its themes have been haltingly whispered before, the emergence of What Would Jesus Cut? represents the most viable, coherent and exciting vision for fastening a Christian moral vision to our national politics at the other end of political spectrum.

Wallis is no rookie in this quest. Beginning in the 1970s, Wallis turned Sojourners into a forum for ideas of social and economic justice. In the 1980s, at the height of the “Reagan Revolution,” its pages highlighted questionable national priorities in an era where spending on the privileged and on a robust military diminished domestic and social initiatives to benefit the poor. Wallis and Sojourners were also linked to the Central America Solidarity Movement, which mobilized Christian faith to counter the destructive collateral damage of Reagan administration policy in the region. Central America Solidarity in turn was linked transnationally to the burgeoning liberation theology movement in Latin America that harnessed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to the struggle for political and economic justice and against Latin America’s oppressive dictatorships.



There are signs that the 2010s could be a fertile ground for using Christian ideals to pursue goals of social justice. For one thing, in the run-up to the current deficit wrangling, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, initially appointed on the Republicans' watch, acknowledged that there were areas of the defense budget that could stand trimming right alongside other measures of frugality in discretionary spending. This is a good bit of progress since the Reagan era attitude that defense was not a budget item subject to the same "spending arithmetic" as others.

If the moral test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable, the emergence of What Would Jesus Cut? may be the flashlight leading us out of the dark cave of budgetary wrangling. But it should also provide progressives with a model for marrying religion to politics in a way that reinvigorates their agenda, rather than simply leaving the field wide open to often intolerant evangelicals and social conservatives.

* Brad Martin is an associate professor of history at Bryant University in Rhode Island. He is the author of The Other Eighties: A Secret History of America in the Age of Reagan. More: Brad Martin




What Would Jesus Cut? I'd expect he would cut it all to help the the poor, and not just our poor. Still, maybe they're on to something. I'm not the biggest fan of politics and faith intermingling and I wouldn't call my self a Democrat, but I am sick of the Right having a monopoly on all things 'moral' and 'Christian.'


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 7:46 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



And I'm sick of the Left trying to use their phony morality and play gimmie gimmie with other people's money.

Americans donate more of their $ to charity than anyone. If we cut out so much waste and fraud in govt, then we'd have more of our own $ to spend as is needed. Cut out the middle man and do away w/ this absurd notion that we all need to add to the national kitty, to let govt parcel out bits of OUR money back to " the needy ".




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 7:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It is always refreshing to see someone's hypocrisy pointed out. (Perhaps less refreshing when it is my own hypocrisy. I am not immune to human foibles, though I do hope to learn from them.)

The important bit to me was this: "the GOP plan actually called for an $8 billion increase in defense spending, while cutting $758 million from Women, Infants, and Children, a program that provides nutrition for many of the nation’s neediest souls."

I have said it before and I'll say it again: If the Republicans are serious about being fiscally responsible, defense spending must be at the top of the chopping block. It makes no sense to target small programs that save people when you aren't carving up large programs whose aim is to destroy people.

I stress that the aim is to destroy people, because our defense spending exceeds defense needs by a wide margin. We only spend as much as we do in order to project power.

If we reduced defense spending to the actual amount needed to defend our nation, we would be able to cut the budget enough to make any fiscally responsible person ecstatic.

That is, if such people really are fiscally responsible, and not simply selectively spendy.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 8:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Although I'm a card-carrying atheist, my morals hark back to Pope John 23, who stressed Jesus' message of 'love' during his papacy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 8:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Americans donate more of their $ to charity than anyone.
Yet another baseless RapFact.

In any case, my view of charity is still "Pity would be no more if we did not MAKE people poor". In other words, if our policies and politics were about fairness rather than the narrowly defined "freedoms" that SOME people want for relentless greed, there would be much less of a need for "charity".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 9:03 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Again, no one ever cried "Give me fairness, or give me death! " .




RapFacts are simply FACTS. Get use to it.

Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_e
e_1226eaves.html


According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the countries giving the highest amounts of money (in absolute terms) are as follows:

United States - $28.67 billion
France - $12.43 billion
Germany - $11.98 billion
United Kingdom - $11.50 billion
Japan - $9.48 billion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries


The US gives more away via govt spending ( tax dollars ) and private donations to charity than anyone. It's not a contest, it's simply stating a fact.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 9:24 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I don't know about charity, but America gives more to the defense department than any other nation.

Virtually ten times more than our nearest competitor, China.

We currently field 10 Carrier Strike Groups with carriers, and one without (coming soon!)

I'd be happy to imagine a world where we somehow kept our defense budget down to a cool 100 billion (~30 billion more than our nearest competitor, freeing ~600 billion from the budget) but it seems no matter how fiscally responsible our leaders claim to be, they'd rather shave nickles than save dollars.

Never mind the off-the-budget wars we enjoy engaging in, that few of our economic watchdogs seem anxious to terminate.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 9:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Yes, the charity point is correct, though we could quibble of how much budgeted charity from the US Federal Gov't actually REACHES the people it's intended for before such funds are looted. Similarly, whether charities that receive donations are honest or if they take too much of a percentage to overhead.

As for fairness, I do believe there have been quotable cries for justice in the past, and those are similar animals. However, I can't say I'm too fond of the justice side of the fairness spectrum, too much association with the concept of revenge.

Fairness itself isn't bad, and any decent society should be set up to maximize fairness and freedoms wherever possible. By this I equate "fairness" to "lack of corruption," as I see fairness the domain of the laws/ social contract of the society in question, and believe fairness as a principle only exists if such laws are evenly applied to the population. Basically I don't believe money should be able to protect someone if they are shown to have committed wrong against someone else' person, livelyhood, family, or property.

Other definitions of fairness gets into socio-economic questions that I think are best left up to the practice of the communities that choose them.

Freedom and rights are everything else that laws cannot and should not take away.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 9:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rappy, your own figures on a per capita basis put America lower than most of your other cited nations. Each person in the following nations gives this many times MORE than each person in the United States

France 2.07
Germany 1.58
United Kingdom 2.01

So, your very own words and cites work against you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 10:10 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


I have said it before and I'll say it again: If the Republicans are serious about being fiscally responsible, defense spending must be at the top of the chopping block.



But they're not, unless they can cut something they ideologically oppose.

So, they won't.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 12:01 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.


If it's what they have to do to get the message across, then good for them I suppose, but I don't see why it has to be Christian to be moral.


Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 12:10 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Rap

You are all about greed. But you don't want people to know so you call it 'freedom'. You despise it when society cares for its own rather than preys on its own. But you hate it when people call you out on your ruthless, vicious greed.

So, for the record, Rap, to avoid the label of greedy hypocrite, how much of your own personal money have you donated to charity, stated as a percent of your income?

C'mon little boy, man up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 12:26 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:

Originally posted by LiLi:
If it's what they have to do to get the message across, then good for them I suppose, but I don't see why it has to be Christian to be moral.


Facts are stubborn things.



That's pretty much how I see it. It does not have to be Christian to be moral, but the fact that it is both makes it an effective motivator, in theory anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 12:28 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by LiLi:
If it's what they have to do to get the message across, then good for them I suppose, but I don't see why it has to be Christian to be moral.


Facts are stubborn things.



It doesn't.

But making it Christian makes it harder for those who make a big deal of their Christian morals to ignore the fact that they actively work in opposition to those morals.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 1:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"But making it Christian makes it harder for those who make a big deal of their Christian morals to ignore the fact that they actively work in opposition to those morals."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not going to work. There are many flavors of true believer, from religion to 'objectivism'. People are true believers for emotional reasons, and, as we have seen with Rap, a true believer is resistant to facts, in fact becomes even more entrenched when faced with contradictory facts. They will rationalize anything. Just as Rap will say his belief is about freedom and not greed, the vengeful self-righteous will make some claim as to why their brand of right-wing politico-religion is 'what Jesus would do'. Not only despite evidence to the contrary, but even more stubbornly because of it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 1:47 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It does not matter how much Mr. Raptor donates to charity. It has no bearing on his personal failings. It neither enhances nor mitigates them.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 1:49 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I would call greed to be a personal failing, especially the victimizing kind that seeks to not only gain, but make others lose. even their lives if need be. But, feel free to defend it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 1:52 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


I thought rap was athiest, and is there any point in the personal attacks outside of trolling?

I dunno if it'll 'work' either, but I'd like it if they ended the misconception that to be 'Christian' is to be 'Republican.' I'd like it even more if we can get a more fiscally and socially responsible budget out of this.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 2:02 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
making it Christian makes it harder for those who make a big deal of their Christian morals to ignore the fact that they actively work in opposition to those morals.


Point.

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I thought rap was athiest


He claims to be, yes. I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up. Since no one referred to anything about his religion, only his character, your mention of atheism kind of comes out of left field.


Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 2:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


From what I understand, the Religious Right in the US choose to follow a different interpretation of the Bible than the Christians I am used to dealing with.

Traditionally, Christians here would have been morally conservative, but much more to the left in terms of social justice issues, and moved quite to the left during the 60's and 70's. Many Christian groups here would oppose abortion and perhaps gay marriage, but would usually be vocally supportive of government programs that assisted the disadvantaged as well as encouraging individual charity.

I have noted with some amusement the reinterpretation by the right of the Jesus quote - "it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." in order that the wealthy need not feel panicky about being wealthy.

I think if Jesus came back, you'd find him raging through the financial sector.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 2:05 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I thought rap was athiest, and is there any point in the personal attacks outside of trolling?

I dunno if it'll 'work' either, but I'd like it if they ended the misconception that to be 'Christian' is to be 'Republican.' I'd like it even more if we can get a more fiscally and socially responsible budget out of this.



Rap is a True Believer, but it does not necessarily follow he is religious.

I know that christian does not equal republican, hence the term Christian Right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 2:10 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Yes, my point was that Rap is a true believer. Going by the example of true believership he provides us, I proposed that other true believers would behave the same way in their milieu.

As for trolling, I find Rap to be useless, except as a thing to point and laugh at.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 3:07 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


My bad, I thought the 'true believer' was meant to associate him with the 'Christian Right' which would seem silly if we was not Christian. Ain't no reason why a person can't be a true believer in something not religious, but most folks in this thread don't seem to believe he believes in anything (save greed) unless he's just a giant hypocrite. So I was a mite confused.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 4:29 PM

BYTEMITE


No worries Happy. The thread did start out as a discussion about Christianity and politics, seems like there was a turn in the discussion somewhere so you still thought they were talking about Christians.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 4:48 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


Damn, you beat me to it.

And Raptor, I'm fairly sure someone has said "Give me fairness or give me death" (and if not, I just did). And I would say that the way you defer all arguments to people have been dead more than 2 centuries is very....religious.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 6:12 PM

DREAMTROVE


The Dems fail to understand the mindset of their opponents. Jesus wouldn't have any federal spending at all, but his followers really don't care. They care about being allowed to live by their own values and not being told what to do by a central authority. But even if they did care about govt. programs, they would want them to be charities, and are probably likely to be suspicious of the govt's "assistance" as well they should be, given the past record.

"And then Caesar shall come down and lift you out of poverty with his divine powers and humanly goodness" - Jesus didn't say.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 6:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Jesus wouldn't have any federal spending at all ... (or) being told what to do by a central authority.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He didn't appear to be against paying taxes to support a central government. He wasn't exactly leading a tax revolt.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 7:10 PM

BYTEMITE


I honestly can't remember if Jesus himself specifically spoke of a tithing. Someone help me out here.

Render unto Caesar has a number of interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar%E2%80%A6

Jesus was leading a revolt in general, however. It was a time of a lot of prophets, dissatisfaction with the Emperors, the decline and decadence of Rome was well on it's way. Jesus felt no particular warmth for the Romans or their claimed jurisdiction over the lands of Jerusalem, which Jesus would also have thought belonged to God. I note also that the primary reason for Jesus' trial and punishment, according to the Romans, was tax resistance and disruption of tax collection.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 25, 2011 8:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


" I note also that the primary reason for Jesus' trial **and punishment**, according to the Romans, was tax resistance and disruption of tax collection."

Nope. Pilate, the representative of Rome in the Judea, found that Jesus has NOT violated any Roman laws, according to the gospels. In the end, it was the preachers who did Jesus in, using the authority of Roman to enforce local rules in order to get rid of the man who challenged their importance.

WIKI

In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands to show that he was not responsible for the execution of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.

Mark, depicting Jesus as innocent of plotting against the Roman Empire, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish priestly hierarchy for his death and washing his hands not of Jesus (as in Matthew) but of the Sadducees and of any association with their actions.

In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, also finds nothing treasonable in Jesus' actions.

According to the canonical Christian Gospels, Pilate presided at the trial of Jesus and, despite stating that he personally found him not guilty of a crime meriting death, handed him over to crucifixion. Pilate is thus a pivotal character in the New Testament accounts of Jesus.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was brought to Pilate by the Sanhedrin, who had arrested Jesus and questioned him themselves. The Sanhedrin had, according to the Gospels, only been given answers by Jesus that they considered blasphemous pursuant to Mosaic law, which was unlikely to be deemed a capital offense by Pilate interpreting Roman law.[14] The Gospel of Luke[15] records that members of the Sanhedrin then took Jesus before Pilate where they accused him of sedition against Rome by opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar and calling himself a king. Fomenting tax resistance was a capital offense.[16] Pilate was responsible for imperial tax collections in Judaea. Jesus had asked the tax collector Levi, at work in his tax booth in Capernaum, to quit his post. Jesus also appears to have influenced Zacchaeus, "a chief tax collector" in Jericho, which is in Pilate's tax jurisdiction, to resign.[17] Pilate's main question to Jesus was whether he considered himself to be the King of the Jews, and thus a political threat. Mark in the NIV translation states: "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "It is as you say," Jesus replied. However, quite a number of other translations render Jesus' reply as variations of the phrase: "Thou sayest it."(King James Version, Mark 15:2); "So you say." (Good News Bible, Mark 15:2). Whatever degree of confirmation modern interpreters would derive from this answer of Jesus, according to the New Testament, it was not enough for Pilate to view Jesus as a real political threat. In the same Gospel of Mark, 15 verse 5 of King James Version we read, that "Pilate marveled" ("was amazed" in Good News Bible).

Following the Roman custom, Pilate ordered a sign posted above Jesus on the cross stating "Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews" to give public notice of the legal charge against him for his crucifixion. The chief priests protested that the public charge on the sign should read that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. Pilate refused to change the posted charge, saying "What I have written, I have written." This may have been to emphasize Rome's supremacy in crucifying a Jewish king; it is likely, though, that Pilate was quite irritated by the fact that the Jewish leaders had used him as a marionette and thus compelled him to sentence Jesus to death contrary to his own will (according to Mathew 27:19, even Pilate's wife spoke to him on Jesus' behalf).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:17 AM

BYTEMITE


Remember that some of those gospels were written well after Jesus' time. Rome became the capital of Catholicism. Ergo, the people who wrote them and rewrote them had a vested interest in promoting Rome as the good guys in the conflict, and the religious leaders as the bad guys. Hence, all the Christian jew-hate that has happened since.

A brief study of history will show that the people of Judea are actually a broad mix of religions, that came under one heading with some clever obfuscation from their leaders and some blurring of ideas through writing and oral tradition. It will also show that some of the believers in the old testament were oppressed by other believers of the old testament, that there was lots of racism and wars. And it will ALSO show that the Romans oppressed them as a whole, as they were a conquered group.

The entire book of Romans is complaining about those damn Romans, for example.

You'll also find out that Tiberius Augustus Caesar was a conquering Emperor, real big on taxing the provinces, and not a very popular guy. You'll also find that in context the Render Onto Caesar quote was a response to a question meant as a trap by people intending to either disprove Jesus' claimed divinity (he does not support God above all), or to provide evidence that Jesus was encouraging people to not pay taxes, inciting the masses against Roman rule (which he was).

As such, the Render onto Caesar line is a deliberately ambiguous line, and therefore not one that you can determine Jesus' stance on taxes. And you can trust the gospels' take on taxes even less, because the Roman Catholic Church needed both tithing, and needed to support taxes for all the kings that kept them feed and in power.

If you take as true the "reason" given for Jesus' crucifixion as that he claimed to be divine king of the "Jews", and represented a challenge to the deification of the emperor, it's pretty ridiculous. Do you know HOW many deities there were in the Roman Empire? When the Romans encountered a new religion, they absorbed it as a matter of fact, so long as the conquered people agreed to pay respects to the Roman Emperor and the empire itself there was not much problem. Even the people in the Judaic region, those who were monotheist, managed to assimilate. It was mostly the Christians who got persecuted early on, before Christianity took over.

It is unlikely that Pilate, as the prefect of the region, would have appealed to Judea law over Roman law, as he was the government, and he had the soldiers, and he did not believe in the Judaic region's religions. He was also known for his brutality against said religions.

The accounts with Herod are inconsistent, Luke's Gospel is the only one that portrays Jesus being sent back to Herod. It was introduced to call back to a line in the Psalms saying that the kings of the earth would be opposed to the anointed. And when Pontius Pilate washes his hands and leaves Jesus' fate to the crowd, that's not referring to the council of religious elders he had consulted that supposedly had an issue with Jesus, it's an actual crowd of gathered commoners, which casts aspersions on the entire religion, and which suggests even the religious leaders didn't convict Jesus, and Pontius had to go to the crowds to do so. This event is also direct contradiction with other passages suggesting that Jesus was popular with the people of Jerusalem. The argument that the jewish people and religious leadership were to blame ultimately falls apart. All of this together suggests that Pontius did in fact act on his own, in a manner consistent with his usual style with religious uprisings and tax resistance in his region.

Take out all the misdirection towards the priesthood and you have an entirely non-ambiguous account of a prefect who was disrespectful of the beliefs of those he presided over, who was basically an unopposed dictator of his region, and would have had reason to execute Jesus on charges of sedition and tax evasion, which was a capital offense. Jesus was punished in a manner consistent with a capital offense. It's fairly straightforward.

Adding back in the priests, we do have some accounts that when someone annoyed either religious or regional leaders, they might be executed. John the Baptist was killed for questioning Herod's divorce and remarriage (Herod was from Roman families, but tried at least somewhat to not offend Judaic religions except were it was inconvenient). Jesus turned out the money changers from the temple. But ultimately all that would have been secondary to what was likely the original charges against Jesus, which also suggest his ultimate punishment.

If you really want to show that Jesus was pro-taxation, then find me a reference of Jesus supporting tithing for the church, because I honestly can't remember if he did or not. But Jesus would see the church (or possibly his church) as the ultimate authority for charity, rule of law, and social programs, and this is a better argument for your point.

EDIT: I looked it up. There's not much that Jesus says about tithing, there seems to be a line where he accuses some Pharisees of hypocrisy for not making offerings as they said they would.

However, there's plenty in there about giving. Use this as your pro-tax argument, because all the other stuff has been shrouded by history and open to debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe#New_Testament

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:33 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Maybe he just wasn't interested in such things. Moaning about taxation is a minute earthly concern. Perhaps he had more important fish to fry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, your own figures on a per capita basis put America lower than most of your other cited nations. Each person in the following nations gives this many times MORE than each person in the United States

France 2.07
Germany 1.58
United Kingdom 2.01

So, your very own words and cites work against you.



We almost as much as the next two countries combined. And there's a huge drop off after that....

It's not even a debate.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:15 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Rap

You are all about greed. But you don't want people to know so you call it 'freedom'. You despise it when society cares for its own rather than preys on its own. But you hate it when people call you out on your ruthless, vicious greed.

So, for the record, Rap, to avoid the label of greedy hypocrite, how much of your own personal money have you donated to charity, stated as a percent of your income?

C'mon little boy, man up.




You're real giving with other's money, aren't you ? Is THAT how you measure 'charity' ? How much you can force from the tax payers and give to selected groups ?

As for what I give, that business is my own. It's called CHARITY for a reason, it's not a pissing contest.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:16 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Maybe he just wasn't interested in such things. Moaning about taxation is a minute earthly concern. Perhaps he had more important fish to fry.



True, something that I had considered, and another perfectly valid interpretation of the "render unto Caesar" quote.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:20 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
And I would say that the way you defer all arguments to people have been dead more than 2 centuries is very....religious.



There's nothing in the least bit superstitious about quoting those who came before us, is there ?

Don't think so.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 3:37 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Jesus wouldn't have any federal spending at all ... (or) being told what to do by a central authority.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He didn't appear to be against paying taxes to support a central government. He wasn't exactly leading a tax revolt.


For another remark taken out of context.

It's not really a mystery. There were a lot of protests among people of various faiths in Palestine that they should not be paying taxes to a pagan self proclaimed divine empire. Jesus most specifically did not want that trouble. In spite of this, he was accused of inciting the people to not pay taxes because of his anti-govt. attitude.

It's not really that different from today. You have the Richard Hatch libertarians, who are right of course, but are just giving the govt. an excuse to attack them. If you want to get anywhere, a good start might be not giving the govt. an excuse for attacking you.

Jesus understood this very well. To say that he was a supporter of the Roman Empire and its policies is absurd. He was, of course, executed for treason against Rome. He didn't really die for your sins, he died for crimes he may or may not have been guilty of, but he was doing his best to skirt the spirit of the law while trying to stay within the letter of the law, a tactic that almost never works for the underdog. It only works for major corporations and govt. agents. Then as now. If he had been an international oil corporation, he probably could have gotten away with a lot. Oh, the Roman Empire had those, even in Jesus' day. Olive oil, in particular, which was a major issue in Palestine at the time.

Jesus really didn't want to mess with the oil trade anymore than he wanted to mess with politics, the whole system was basically booby-trapped, that's the thing about capitalism: You're bound to end up unpopular with someone. In his case, though the orthodox Jewish priesthood had a serious beef with him, and held a fair amount of sway in Rome, I suspect it was his run ins with the money-lenders that got him in real trouble. (Ron Paul take note.) After all, the sway of Judea was not enough to stop Nero from crushing Jerusalem, (thus earning him a not entirely undeserved reputation in our media, but to be fair, he wasn't really any worse than the others.)

Now if this had been the 2nd or 3rd century, I might have consider religious influence peddling a more serious element, but this was the first century.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 3:48 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:

He didn't really die for your sins, he died for crimes he may or may not have been guilty of


Sort of a matter of semantics here, but he did die for our sins. However, he was killed for crimes he may or may not have been guilty of, if you catch my meaning. That is my interpretation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You're real giving with other's money, aren't you ? Is THAT how you measure 'charity' ? How much you can force from the tax payers and give to selected groups ?
Personally, I would like to see the government stop forcing me to give MY money to corporations. Let's stop giving them such big friggin' tax breaks, for crissake! They should at least pay their fair share.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:11 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The Dems fail to understand the mindset of their opponents. Jesus wouldn't have any federal spending at all, but his followers really don't care. They care about being allowed to live by their own values and not being told what to do by a central authority. But even if they did care about govt. programs, they would want them to be charities, and are probably likely to be suspicious of the govt's "assistance" as well they should be, given the past record.

"And then Caesar shall come down and lift you out of poverty with his divine powers and humanly goodness" - Jesus didn't say.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.




And you have no concept of your alleged allies, or THEIR beliefs. Nobody in the Tea Party or the Republican Party is for getting rid of the federal government. Not a single one of them. Witness their votes on defense spending. You can't honestly preach against "central authority" and at the same time vote to INCREASE spending on your central military machine. You just can't.

Anyone who tells you that righties are looking to get rid of the federal government is either an idiot or a liar, or (more probably) both.

I expect better of you, DT.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:55 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's nothing in the least bit superstitious about quoting those who came before us, is there ?

Don't think so.B]



Not the first few times when it's apt. Using quotes from those who have come before and casting it as proof in your thinking makes you sound near-sighted and shallow.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 4:46 AM

DREAMTROVE


Sig,

The only law forcing you to give your money to a corporation is Obamacare.

You could always do what I do, and keep your income just low enough to avoid owing taxes. My logic is that everything taxed is ultimately taxed at about the rate of 50% when you add it all together, after you get passed the exemptions.

Most people make the mistake of looking for a higher paying job, which usually means more hours, rather than looking for a higher paying job per hour with fewer hours.


Mike,

I may be a conservative, but I'm still a democract. Call me a DINO if you will, but my interest in the Tea Party was that it carried the ideals of Ron Paul, now it's abandoned those for birther madness and will be used by Trump to split the vote to help re-elect Obama, no doubt in exchange for some friendly gambling regulations and a big hunk of cash.

My hope for the GOP is that they put forth Ron Paul. They'll still lose, because Trump will make them lose.

My point is that the Dems don't understand the christian base. The whole reason their religion exists is to protect their cultural values. Govt. intervention in their lives is not going to help them accomplish those goals. That's why you didn't see all the christians praying for a return of socialism.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:37 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Interesting article Happy, nicely done by the way later in the thread too. I think Magon's makes some good points about how Jesus was very pro helping the poor and very anti rich-greedy.

I always interpreted what Jesus said about taxes as saying that the law is the law and since we as Christians live all over the world and taxes are usually part of the law wherever we are and we need to be like the other citizens and pay just like anyone else would. Jesus does mention offering when the poor widow puts her little coin in at teh temple and he says that because she gave sincerely her contribution was more valuable in God's sight than the offerings of those rich showoffs making a big thing of giving. That's the only time I can think of. Oh and once the deciples needed to pay a tax and Jesus made it so they would have coins with which to do that, so it would seem to me that Jesus didn't have a problem with taxes, he did however have a problem with the crooked tax collecting habbits that were going on, forcing the locals to pay more than they should have to etc.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Sat, December 21, 2024 19:06 - 256 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:55 - 69 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:29 - 4989 posts
Music II
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:22 - 135 posts
WMD proliferation the spread of chemical and bio weapons, as of the collapse of Syria
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:15 - 3 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:11 - 6965 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, December 21, 2024 17:58 - 4901 posts
TERRORISM EXPANDS TO GERMANY ... and the USA, Hungary, and Sweden
Sat, December 21, 2024 15:20 - 36 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Sat, December 21, 2024 15:00 - 242 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sat, December 21, 2024 14:48 - 978 posts
Who hates Israel?
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:45 - 81 posts
French elections, and France in general
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:43 - 187 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL