[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are people evoking Christ as a preacher of confiscatory wealth redistribution?[/quote]
He was. He said give to Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s, didnt he?
Jesus believed we should not be attached to our money.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are people evoking Christ as a preacher of confiscatory wealth redistribution?
He was. He said give to Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s, didnt he?
Jesus believed we should not be attached to our money.[/quote]
Heh. He refused to fall for the trap so he answered the way he did. There was a hope he’d answer differently, and end up in hot water with Roman authorities. Christ wasn’t stopping by to start a political/tax rebellion. And, in the end it doesn’t translate well to our form of government. We have the ability to vote in folks who’d have us render less or more unto them than the current Ceasers in office.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are people evoking Christ as a preacher of confiscatory wealth redistribution?
He was. He said give to Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s, didnt he?
Jesus believed we should not be attached to our money.
Heh. He refused to fall for the trap so he answered the way he did. There was a hope he’d answer differently, and end up in hot water with Roman authorities. Christ wasn’t stopping by to start a political/tax rebellion. And, in the end it doesn’t translate well to our form of government. We have the ability to vote in folks who’d have us render less or more unto them than the current Ceasers in office.[/quote]
Absolutely. We can pay less taxes by electing officials that ask us to pay less taxes.
We still need to pay them though.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
Paul corrupted the teachings of Christ. Jesus was a liberal if ever there was one, a lover and defender of the downtrodden, and a critic of the rich and powerful, which is precisely why the ultra-Conservative Religious Leaders
of his day had him killed. Paul preached hatred, intolerance, vengeance, sexual repression of women, and most disgustingly, gave rise to the view that man is saved by faith and not works in direct contradiction of Christ. Fundamentalists love Paul because he provides a platform for them to spew their vitriol and claim biblical basis.
Jesus: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.
Jesus: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
Jesus: I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you.
Paul: Fuck the poor, nuke your enemies.
You totally misread it. It does not say those that cannot work should not eat, it says those that would not work should not eat.
Huge difference.[/quote]
I have grown used to conservatives who do not acknowledge such a difference. Props to anyone who does.
I’ve only ever gotten the impression that Conservativesism is comfortable with the idea of charity.
[quote]Gael wrote:
I have grown used to conservatives who do not acknowledge such a difference. Props to anyone who does.[/quote]
Maybe you should try talking to conservatives besides than imaginary ones in your head.
Most conservatives oppose government mandated hand-outs, not voluntary charity.
Having worked for a charity, I’ve seen my share of angry, bitter old conservatives who are nothing short of outraged that non government non profit soup kitchens and shelters exist and help people out. It’s not that they don’t want to contribute – it’s that they want these things shut down. It offends their sense of justice or something. I don’t pretend to understand it. By no exaggeration, I have encountered hundreds of these folks, so I have a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about. I also have several close conservative friends, one of whom criticized me for giving money to a street musician.
Another friend of mine goes a step beyond the usual flat tax advocate – he believes that everyone should pay the same amount, regardless of income. He is by no means stupid; he’s a PHD student at a top university and the son of an influential economist. He’s just an adherent of a viewpoint which is regrettably becoming more and more common these days.
McCain is constitutionally ineligible to be the President of the USA.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
McCain is constitutionally ineligible to be the President of the USA.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.[/quote]
That decision may ultimately be the Supreme Courts. I suspect he would be ruled eligible.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
McCain is constitutionally ineligible to be the President of the USA.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.[/quote]
He’s born of two U.S. citizens on a U.S. military installation. Why is there even any controversy?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
He’s born of two U.S. citizens on a U.S. military installation. Why is there even any controversy?[/quote]
The US did not have control of this region when he was born. It was not a military installation.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
He’s born of two U.S. citizens on a U.S. military installation. Why is there even any controversy?
The US did not have control of this region when he was born. It was not a military installation.[/quote]
From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States of America, which had built and financed the canal’s construction. From 1979 to 1999 the canal itself was under joint U.S.-Panamanian control. In 1977 the Torrijos-Carter Treaties established the neutrality of the canal. [1]
Except during times of crisis or political tension, Panamanians could freely enter the Zone. However, the 1903 treaty placed restrictions on their right to buy at retail stores in the Zone, for the protection of Panamanian shopkeepers.
During U.S. control of the Canal Zone, the territory, apart from the canal itself, was used mainly for military purposes; however, approximately 3,000 American civilians (called “Zonians”) made up the core of permanent residents. U.S. military usage ended when the zone returned to Panamanian control. It has now been integrated to the economic development of Panama, and is a tourist destination of sorts, especially for visiting cruise ships.
Notable people born in the Panama Canal Zone include John McCain, Richard Prince, Kenneth Bancroft Clark and Rod Carew.