Thread: Free Trade vs Protectionism

Originally Posted by teaser47401

I couldn’t quickly find statistics on ex-congressmen because they do not have to publicly report their assets, however I assumed that you could extrapolate.

I’m sorry that was stupid of me.

It was stupid of you to look and see that some of those you listed are millions in the red on paper. If they are millions in the red, how did they afford a campaign to be elected?

John drake, when Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr. If Maytag had been granted immunity from all unreasonable and/or reasonable government regulations, taxes and fees, Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA.
A 750% difference of labor costs is not a factor that Maytag could ignore and sacrificing our median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our problems.

Sovereign nations’ governing their own global trade regulations should be the determiners of their own best interests. Within circumstances of corporations’ and the nations’ best interests diverging, governments’ policies should favor their own nation. That’s not USA’s practice.

It is not our global trade but our trade deficits’ that are a significant net detriment to our economy. Trade deficits’ are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

I’m a proponent of a proposal to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods that was first introduced to the Senate in 2006. The market driven proposal does not favor or discriminate between foreign nations, or between manufactured, agricultural or any other industries’ products. It is self funding; eventually all expenses are borne by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods.

Refer to:
Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage, posted JULY 21, 2011
or to “www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.com ”
or Google wikipedia, import certificates

Respectfully, Supposn

In reply to:

Originally Posted by JohnLocke
It must have been mistranslated in every translation. Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal., Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Wrote:

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Actually, it is.

The version I found, Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's."

I like mine better since it uses ass rather than donkey, “"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's … ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's." Ass covers so much more today than it did when it was first used or translated, and relatively few own a donkey and would not understand how much a nice donkey is worth. I know its crude but what can I say?

Besides the fact is that you are referencing a Christian site; that's fine.
I used to LOVE the BlueLetterBible.org NT site because it was painstakingly comprehensive with God knows how many links, except, of course, for the mistranslated words.

From my studies I’ve learned not to trust a single translation of any sacred text and try to read multiple versions, at least three, before I begin to believe I have any beginning understanding of a given text, the Christian Bible included. My wife’s nephew 27(?) goes to the Latin Mass, rather than the modern Catholic Mass, since he feels transformed using what he considers an almost sacred language, rather than the common tongue. Latin is used today only in law, medicine, science, and the Latin Catholic rites of baptism, conformation, and death. The Latin Mass is only spoken in some churches and when, it is offered only a limited number of times per week. Praying in a language other than one’s common tongue elevates the occasion, transcending the moment beyond our mundane existence.

You have to remember that almost all English NTs are based either on the KJV or the Greek mistranslation.
Even the New International Version didn't have the intestinal fortitude to go back to the original Hebrew because of the mutltitude of mistranslated words.

The King James Bible is also a poor translation, but it is beautifully written.
Since most translations of the Bible have been done by a committee of humans, is it any wonder that the work is flawed, even when beautifully written.

That "virgin" reference, for instance, is actually "maiden", which by no means in Hebrew infers a virgin.

Yep.

For many decades publishers have been extremely hesitant in correcting the mistranslations because it wasn't always fun to be a Jew, even in America.
The publishing company, Mesorah (M-Sow-Rah) (means "tradition") in their ArtScroll publication series has been winking their eyes for decades knowing that the overwhelming majority of Jews who read their Torah commentaries don't read the English.

I don’t know if I’d blame it on anti-Semitic fears in this case. Many of the founding fathers were able to read Hebrew, along with Latin and Greek. Cleaning out my wife’s grandfather’s home after he died, I found several old text books, he had been a teacher in his later years. One was titled, My First Greek Reader, which was intended for a middle school or early high school age student, but would today be taught at the college level. Correcting the flaws of translation, translations which have been considered the sacred word of God for hundreds of years, may be asking too much of common believers. Imagine how most Catholics wouldn’t accept the change from “virgin” to “maiden” in their Holy text, particularly with the Catholic focus of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. I think there would be a few complaints. And since it is usually believers who print and produce the sacred texts of their own traditions, there is an inherent tendency to stick with the conventionally accepted interpretations of the scriptures and the tradition, even if you personally don‘t accept that version.

The most famous example, of course, Is Isaiah, 53, 8 (Isaiah 53 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre) (Isaiah 53 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre) which translates the work Ah-Mow (His nation) as Him to indicate the singular Jesus.

Actually, Hebrew is an amazingly simple language, having less than half the words of the next smallest language.

With the smaller word base context would be even more important when it comes to determining meaning and translation. Given the nature of contextual knowledge, which is a bit more nuanced and subtle, and culturally bound, I would consider it more difficult, particularly for a second language learned later in life. I don’t know if I’d characterize it as a simple language, I think you are just trying to be humble.

The best way to know is to ask a Christian scholar who is versed in Hebrew the selected word, such as Ah-Mow.
Do not mention the context and it is impossible for the word to indicate the singular.

Context is important? Who’d ah thunk that could be possible?

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You actually pretty much hit that nail on the head.
Jews don't believe in a progressive tax as such.
The problem we have is different candidates projecting costs of projects, whether for maintenance or construction, that are favorable to their constituents, cntributors and gophers.
We are bleeding crony money all over the place.

Which is another reason why I want less of government not more.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by teaser47401

In reply to: Originally Posted by Mahasattva
I have no idea by what criteria you judge Moses a “clever charlatan.”

I accept two possibilities, the first that god spoke to Moses, the second that God did not talk to Moses. If the second is true then the basis for western civilization is a lie.

Ah, no.

The Ten Commandments are a fraud, but, a useful and productive fraud providing the moral context for our society. These Commandments then, as a basis for a just culture, are truth, independent of origin, tested through history. If God did not speak to Moses, then he was a very clever charlatan.

I wouldn’t really call that a criteria. More like a rationalization than a standard set of judgments designed to determine the authenticity of a spiritual/religious experience. But hey, if it works for you …

Originally Posted by teaser47401

In reply to: Originally Posted by Mahasattva
Ah, no. Buddhism is a path toward an end of suffering on an ontological level and has nothing to do with a soul it does not recognize as a valid reality.

I beg to disagree. What is the soul if not that which survives reincarnation, that vessel that caries karma? Buddhism is very much about the soul.

Sorry, but that would be incorrect. Buddhism does not recognize a separate permanent eternal abiding self or immortal soul of any kind psychological, spiritual, or divine. In fact, our way of perceiving reality, from the perspective of a separate self sense, is considered by Buddhists as a fundamental error and ultimately illusionary and one of the main reasons we suffer.

Buddhism teaches (at least some branches) that while the physical reality is an illusion, there is an underlying existence, that we are a part of, which transcends the illusion.

Which has nothing to do with a separate unchanging permanent immortal soul.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

In reply to: Originally Posted by Mahasattva
:rolleyes: Yes, the Judeo-Christian worldview was a part of the basis for Western society, but so was the rationalism of the Greeks and Roman Law and the philosophical ideals of liberty developed during the Age of the Western Enlightenment.

But the defining characteristic of western culture is the subservience of all members of the society to God’s laws; laws that apply to all members of the society regardless of rank or privilege.

The rule of law was inherited from Roman Law, not Christianity, but for the English and us Americans it was also influenced by early Germanic ideals of law and kingship in that the law applied to all ranks. The judge or king was not above the law. Christian theology, especially after Luther, asserted that each was equal before God and God’s judgment which reinforced the Germanic ideals. No one was above the law, neither pauper or prince.

Also, its not about following “God’s Law” since any authority can claim to be following “God’s Law,” giving themselves the authority to change it. Its following the rule of law, which allows people to know where they stand in relation to the law before they take any action, that is one of the defining characteristics of western culture.

When a nation turns from this principle, they cease to be the apex of western culture and become as the Greeks, the Romans, the Nazis, etc. etc. etc.

Hmm, the Nazis were going to crash and burn eventually, their corruption was a little deeper than the common political scandal of taking money and abusing power. Hitler, like many demagogues claimed to be on the side of righteousness (its not a new tactic) and God‘s Law. The Greeks, well that’s a little hard to blame on one failing grace, since there were several different kinds of Greeks -- Athens or Sparta? And when do you mark the fall? Athens fell to Sparta for different reasons then Sparta fell to Thebes, and Alexandra died having achieved his Greatness. Greek may have fallen, but its art and philosophy lived on in Roman. Rome did become corrupt and an empty shell of its former self, especially after it split in two. Yes, a nation which turns from the principle of the rule of law does open itself to corruption, at least corruption becomes much easier, but it does not necessarily lead to its downfall.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

In reply to: Originally Posted by USCitizen
Jews don't believe in a progressive tax as such.

And Christians do? How do Buddhists land on the question?

Like Christians there are probably some Buddhists who support a progressive tax system and there are others who don’t.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by USCitizen

In reply to: Originally Posted by Mahasattva You cannot have a community of human beings without first acknowledging the individuals who make up that community.

Correct; you either belong or you are free to go your own way, but you cannot use either religion to justify Libertariansm.
I have no problem with Libertarians who simply state what they are.

No one is trying to do that. John’s and 9’s and my replies have been in response to others who are attempting to use religion to promote their leftist Progressive collectivist ideology.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva
If by TNT you mean “The New Testament” that would be false. For example the commandment, “Thou shall not murder,” while it does express a community standard, it is directed at the individual, not the community as a whole. Only an individual can refrain from committing murder.

The Roman Empire did not commit murder to acquire possessions, territory, land?

No, it didn’t. The Roman Empire engaged in war and conquest to acquire possessions, territory, land, and to secure their territory and land from invaders.

The command is stated in the singular because each and every person is responsible.

Some common peasant shanghaied into an army and forced to fight is singularly responsible and guilty of murder? Ah no. You can convict an individual of a crime but not a group. Even when a criminal conspiracy is determined to have occurred it is the individuals who are charged, judged, and convicted. We could logically call the Nazi regime a criminal conspiracy, and condemn them as a group, but the Nuremburg trails determined the guilt (or innocence) of individuals not the group.

If the plural was stated, it would be construed that murder by two or more individuals is OK.

No, if it had been stated in the plural it would have made very little sense. We must remember that an act of murder is not the same thing as an act of killing, according to either Jewish or Christian (Church) law, even though in both cases someone dies.

If two people commit a murder they each get their own trial.

And if the Roman Empire marches off to war there will be no “grand jury” to determine if a crime has occurred, unless the army suffers a defeat and the Senate wants to punish the commander for losing.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva
Not even Steve is using “God’s words” to justify the desires of his id. The problem is that he attempts to use “God’s word” to justify his neo-Marxist Progressive ideology. Again, do a little research into liberation theology or Black liberation theology. Its basically Marxism in Christian drag. One of the more absurd claims of neo-Marxists is that Jesus was the first communist and that he sought to establish a communist social order long before the necessary social conditions were set (necessary if you buy into the Marxist theories of the progress of history).

Where does Steve state Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs.

Which proves what exactly?

He is merely stating a Biblical statement providing the cardinality of concern...
Neighborhood, town or city, nation.

USCit, you were complaining about people taking biblical verses out of context in an attempt to support their own economic/political ideology. Neighborhood, town, city, or nation are not the only cardinality of concerns within either Judaism or Christianity (though there is a stronger emphases on it within Judaism). The whole purpose of TNT is to preach the “good news,” which is the death and resurrection of the Christ for the salvation of the individual soul.

Neither religion touts Marx's communism in any way whatsoever.

Exactly the point, but those who promote liberation theology and black liberation theology would argue that point. Steve has attempted to present his form of Christianity as touting his economic and political ideology.

Once again, today's non-Libertarianism and non-Conservativatism does not necessarity equate to communism.

In what post did anyone assert that was the case? Just because Steve is a neo-Marxist does not mean I think you are.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

No one is trying to do that. John’s and 9’s and my replies have been in response to others who are attempting to use religion to promote their leftist Progressive collectivist ideology.



No, it didn’t. The Roman Empire engaged in war and conquest to acquire possessions, territory, land, and to secure their territory and land from invaders.



Some common peasant shanghaied into an army and forced to fight is singularly responsible and guilty of murder? Ah no. You can convict an individual of a crime but not a group. Even when a criminal conspiracy is determined to have occurred it is the individuals who are charged, judged, and convicted. We could logically call the Nazi regime a criminal conspiracy, and condemn them as a group, but the Nuremburg trails determined the guilt (or innocence) of individuals not the group.



No, if it had been stated in the plural it would have made very little sense. We must remember that an act of murder is not the same thing as an act of killing, according to either Jewish or Christian (Church) law, even though in both cases someone dies.



And if the Roman Empire marches off to war there will be no “grand jury” to determine if a crime has occurred, unless the army suffers a defeat and the Senate wants to punish the commander for losing.



Which proves what exactly?



USCit, you were complaining about people taking biblical verses out of context in an attempt to support their own economic/political ideology. Neighborhood, town, city, or nation are not the only cardinality of concerns within either Judaism or Christianity (though there is a stronger emphases on it within Judaism). The whole purpose of TNT is to preach the “good news,” which is the death and resurrection of the Christ for the salvation of the individual soul.



Exactly the point, but those who promote liberation theology and black liberation theology would argue that point. Steve has attempted to present his form of Christianity as touting his economic and political ideology.



In what post did anyone assert that was the case? Just because Steve is a neo-Marxist does not mean I think you are.

tashi deleks,

M

You have to understand that the Torah applies to Jews only and in many tranditional rabbinial opnions, only when the majority of the world's Jews are living in Israel under rabbinic leadership such as pre-second temple destruction.
This is not as bad as it sounds because every Jew is required to be educated in Torah law, even if by charitable fiat, and it's impossible for a Sanhedrin to pass laws that violate the Torah's precepts.
The rest of the world is judged by Noachide (7 laws given to Noah) laws, which in the majority of instances, varies greatly from the laws application to Jews.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

:rolleyes: Yes we know that Steve embraces the collectivist dream and seeks to demonize anyone who has the temerity to reject his neo-Marxist Progressivism in Christian drag or anyone who champions the right of private property for each individual.

And you must demonize anyone who opposes your selfish individualism. Isn't this fun? Yet another exchange of my historical documents and your eternal adjective laced blather.

I doubt you can include my name in a post and not include "collectivist", "neo-Marxist", "leftist", etc....

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Identity politics is divisive and a fools error. The only ones who engage in it are on the left.

What a joke.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

And the relevance of Jefferson in this discussion is what exactly? No one is seeking to force their beliefs on others by shame or demonization except for Steve. No one is challenging the 1st Amendment or has claimed that a person’s religion should determine their qualifications for political office or citizenship, except Steve.

This nation was not founded upon Islam. If you want to get your drivers license photo taken with a burqa on - not going to happen...

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

So Steve wants to reenact blasphemy laws. No one is trying to remove references to the Ten Commandments from public spaces, well no one on the right.

If you don’t accept the ideology of the self-anointed collectivist not only will they seek to demonize you for rejecting their twisted and false economic and political dogma, if they happen to also be a believer they will try to invoke a tainted interpretation of “God.” Since their arguments have been shown to be illogical and based on a host of false premises they attempt to use “God,” thinking they and they alone have the authority to judge who is worthy of salvation. We have seen this done over and over again throughout history by both theists and atheists and it has always led to tyranny, the Spanish Inquisition and Mao‘s Cultural Revolution come to mind. But Steve does not care about liberty. All he is concerned about is his neo-Marxist Progressive collectivism in Christian drag and seeks to champion the legalized theft of other people’s property and force others to bow down to his twisted liberation theology. Yeah, the world has seen this tactic before.

Your comic book attempt to insult my philosophy is noted.

The only way Mahasattva can operate.

Insult the messenger, avoid the historical evidence that is not convenient to his dogma.

How he became the only person on earth to determine that the Great Depression didn't end until after WW II.

Steve

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You have to understand that the Torah applies to Jews only and in many tranditional rabbinial opnions, only when the majority of the world's Jews are living in Israel under rabbinic leadership such as pre-second temple destruction.
This is not as bad as it sounds because every Jew is required to be educated in Torah law, even if by charitable fiat, and it's impossible for a Sanhedrin to pass laws that violate the Torah's precepts.
The rest of the world is judged by Noachide (7 laws given to Noah) laws, which in the majority of instances, varies greatly from the laws application to Jews.

I'm not really sure what your point is or what specifically you are responding to from my post. Stating the obvious, that the Torah applies only to Jews, effects our discussion in what manner?

tashi deleks,

M

Since Steve is a blind fanatic uninterested in a rational intellectually honest debate I shall be addressing this post to the one or two readers rather than the knee jerk neo-Marxist on a religious mission.

Originally Posted by machinehead61

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

::rolleyes: Yes we know that Steve embraces the collectivist dream and seeks to demonize anyone who has the temerity to reject his neo-Marxist Progressivism in Christian drag or anyone who champions the right of private property for each individual.

And you must demonize anyone who opposes your selfish individualism.

Actually, if Steve were capable of critical thought he would understand that the issue here is his petty attempt to use his twisted interpretation of the Christian religion to further his leftist neo-Marxist Progressive collectivist economic/political ideology. I really don’t care how selfishly he chooses to live his own life. Christianity like any authentic belief system requires the individual to live according to its teachings in a direct and personal way in their daily life. Attempting to out source charitable giving and the doing of good works to the federal government is, like Steve’s theology, a corruption of an authentic faith.

Steve claims that those who reject his welfare over regulated nanny state are being selfish individualist. The idea that charity and good works are to be carried out by each of us in our personal daily lives rather than fostering that responsibility off on the government is never acknowledged.

Isn't this fun? Yet another exchange of my historical documents and your eternal adjective laced blather.

A common tactic of the ideologue is to present cherry picked historical bric-a-brac to support his interpretation of the cherry picked historical bric-a-brac, while completely ignoring the actual substance of the argument he is allegedly responding. He lines up the straw men, knocks them over and believes he has accomplished something. A couple of dismissive comments thrown in for seasoning. He presents distractions rather than clear rebuttals, thinking he has delivered some profound punch line.

I doubt you can include my name in a post and not include "collectivist", "neo-Marxist", "leftist", etc.…

If the “foe shits, wear it.” Steve forgot “Progressive,” “Keynesian,” and a Galbraith sycophant. He’s a little of each of those also, along with being intellectual dishonest, but that has nothing to do with economics or politics.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Identity politics is divisive and a fools error. The only ones who engage in it are on the left.

What a joke.

If the one or two readers clicks the link to the quote above and follows the discussion they will be treated to Steve playing the race card and engaging in identity politics. Yep, what a joke.

Remember my mentioning Steve’s tendency of presenting distractions rather than a reasoned response …

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

And the relevance of Jefferson in this discussion is what exactly? No one is seeking to force their beliefs on others by shame or demonization except for Steve. No one is challenging the 1st Amendment or has claimed that a person’s religion should determine their qualifications for political office or citizenship, except Steve.

This nation was not founded upon Islam. If you want to get your drivers license photo taken with a burqa on - not going to happen...

Did anyone assert that the United States was founded on Islam? Nope. Did Steve answer my question or address the substance of my comment? Nope.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

So Steve wants to reenact blasphemy laws. No one is trying to remove references to the Ten Commandments from public spaces, well no one on the right.

If you don’t accept the ideology of the self-anointed collectivist not only will they seek to demonize you for rejecting their twisted and false economic and political dogma, if they happen to also be a believer they will try to invoke a tainted interpretation of “God.” Since their arguments have been shown to be illogical and based on a host of false premises they attempt to use “God,” thinking they and they alone have the authority to judge who is worthy of salvation. We have seen this done over and over again throughout history by both theists and atheists and it has always led to tyranny, the Spanish Inquisition and Mao‘s Cultural Revolution come to mind. But Steve does not care about liberty. All he is concerned about is his neo-Marxist Progressive collectivism in Christian drag and seeks to champion the legalized theft of other people’s property and force others to bow down to his twisted liberation theology. Yeah, the world has seen this tactic before.

Your comic book attempt to insult my philosophy is noted.

Steve’s inability to engage in critical thinking blinds him to the substance of my arguments, which as usual he believes he can rebut with a dismissive remark. He thinks I have “insulted” his philosophy when I have condemned it for what it is -- neo-Marxist, Progressivism in Christian drag.

The only way Mahasattva can operate.

Insult the messenger,

:rolleyes: Steve is neither a messenger or a prophet. He presents his own personal twisted interpretation of Christian theology to support his economic and political ideology. He is neither preaching a revealed truth handed to him from God-on-high or a logical argument, though he tries his best to pretend he is.

avoid the historical evidence that is not convenient to his dogma.

False.

How he became the only person on earth to determine that the Great Depression didn't end until after WW II.

Again, false, but Steve already knows that.

I guess every forum is required to have at least one self anointed arrogant self righteous blow hard who believes they have God’s personal e-mail and have the authority to judge the righteous and the sinful. From ideologue to demagogue, to false prophet. Well, at least he’s growing.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Since Steve is a blind fanatic uninterested in a rational intellectually honest debate I shall be addressing this post to the one or two readers rather than the knee jerk neo-Marxist on a religious mission.

Insult. Attack the messenger - avoid the message.

This isn't my "religious mission". This is documented Founding Fathers documents and writings.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Actually, if Steve were capable of critical thought he would understand that the issue here is his petty attempt to use his twisted interpretation of the Christian religion to further his leftist neo-Marxist Progressive collectivist economic/political ideology.

Wow, I think you set a new personal record for consecutive adjectives. "leftist neo-Marxist Progressive collectivist economic/political ideology" is very impressive.

In your right wing twisted neo-anarchist conservative economic/political ideology, devoid of all critical thinking, you attempt to make all social problems a matter left to the individual. Thus we need no government at all. All economic/political problems are simply issues between the individual and his/her God.

The Bible and Government - Faith Facts

Jesus did not usher in a political kingdom. But Christianity has been the single largest influence on western society. America's Founding Fathers had the benefit of thousands of years of history to draw on when establishing their government. They could see what had failed in the past. There had been times when the state had absolute authority and persecuted the church. At other times the church had effective control of the state. The founders saw that neither of these extremes were ideal. They developed a system that stood the test of time. Observers everywhere generally agree that American's Founding Fathers achieved a solid balance between church and state, one consistent with biblical concepts.

In a ten-year study undertaken at the Univesity of Houston, researchers examined 15,000 documents from America's founders and determined that 34% of their quotations came from the Bible, the highest by far of any source.

But many people today reject the notion that the Bible should be used as a basis for law. "Narrow minded and outdated!" they say. Ideas have consequences. Let's examine the implications if the Bible is or is not the standard for society and its legal system.

Without an objective standard of truth upon which to base society, the result is that whoever gains the most political power will dominate. Christians believe that the Bible offers ultimate, objective, and absolute truth—as opposed to relative "truth" (i.e., arbitrary "absolutes"). There was a general consensus on this point in America from the earliest settlers until only very recently.

Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law. This was the standard for law beginning with the Mayflower Compact all the way through the constitutions of all 50 states. By the way, what was the stated purpose of the Pilgrims as expressed in the Mayflower Compact? Contrary to revisionist history, their purpose was not to find reigious freedom—they already had found religious freedom in Holland. Their purpose is clearly stated as being for the "Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith." The Pilgrims were missionaries.

The first state constitution was the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639). You may read this document at The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents: The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The framers of this document desired that every aspect of it be based on the Bible (See DeMar's book listed below, America's Christian History, pgs. 57-58). This document was a model for other constitutions including the U.S. Consitution which followed. The above table outlines the wide spread influence of biblical thought on America's legal system. See also the link at the bottom entitled Puritans and the Bible.

Biblical absolutes enshrined into law offered a consensus that meant freedom without chaos. One aspect of this is that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, there exists "unalienable rights" of men. Rights were unalienable because they were given by God. This is very significant because in most societies up until that time (and indeed even today), rights are only conferred by whoever is in power at the time.

Because the American consensus was that the Bible was TRUTH, the tyranny of a few or even the tyranny of the majority could be overcome by one person standing up and appealing to the Bible. The freedom of expression in general in America is a result of our biblical system. Those people who feel free today to condemn the Bible are, ironically, among those who benefit most by the freedoms inherant in our biblical system!

An important aspect of our system of government is that it is based on the Rule of Law. This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments. Together with the concept of unalienable rights from God, these concepts helped ensure a way of life that respected the dignity of every individual.

It is helpful to contrast the American Revolution of 1776 with the French Revolution of 1789. While the American revolution began with an appeal to the sovereignty of God, the French Revolution was founded on the sovereignty of man. The French movement was a product of Voltaire's philosophy which specifically attempted to replace biblical Christianity with man's reason as the ultimate standard.

But the French revolution was a disaster. Anarchy and tyranny reigned with 40,000 people being murdered, the favorite method being the guillotine. Their new constitution only lasted 2 years. Indeed, France has had 7 constitutions during the time that America has only had one.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

I really don’t care how selfishly he chooses to live his own life. Christianity like any authentic belief system requires the individual to live according to its teachings in a direct and personal way in their daily life. Attempting to out source charitable giving and the doing of good works to the federal government is, like Steve’s theology, a corruption of an authentic faith.

Wrong. We are instructed to take Gods' Laws and incorporate them into our society:

Deuteronomy 17:18-20

New International Version (NIV)


18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Steve claims that those who reject his welfare over regulated nanny state are being selfish individualist. The idea that charity and good works are to be carried out by each of us in our personal daily lives rather than fostering that responsibility off on the government is never acknowledged.

And if you in your supreme selfishness ignore God's Laws to take care of the poor, the state is to enforce the law. Just as when you decide to murder, steal, bear false witness, fornicate, etc.... the government is established to enforce God's Law.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

A common tactic of the ideologue is to present cherry picked historical bric-a-brac to support his interpretation of the cherry picked historical bric-a-brac, while completely ignoring the actual substance of the argument he is allegedly responding. He lines up the straw men, knocks them over and believes he has accomplished something. A couple of dismissive comments thrown in for seasoning. He presents distractions rather than clear rebuttals, thinking he has delivered some profound punch line.

You are exactly guilty of what you accuse me of. The Founding Fathers knew that government begins with self government of the individual according to the morals of the Bible - but it doesn't end there.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

If the “foe shits, wear it.” Steve forgot “Progressive,” “Keynesian,” and a Galbraith sycophant. He’s a little of each of those also, along with being intellectual dishonest, but that has nothing to do with economics or politics.

You are beyond ignorant of economic history.

Your juvenile attempts to demonize government intervention during WW II by appealiing to your Gods of selfish conservatism such as Sowell, Reisman, and others - all of which cited nothing but anecdotal evidence and avoided statistical data by the truck-load, demonstrates your inability to stand on your own two feet and think for yourself.

When I presented the STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that you never heard of - because your head is buried in your dogma and not in history - you resorted to eternal repetition of your heroes anecdotal evidence. And when I pointed out that Reisman confirmed what I stated, you lacked the intellectual backbone to admit that you were absolutely wrong and didn't even bother to read your own source beyond what suited your needs.

We can only hope that some day you grow up to adulthood and admit that you don't understand economics.

Until then, you're an intellectual child incapable of growing up and understanding the real world complexities of economics.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

If the one or two readers clicks the link to the quote above and follows the discussion they will be treated to Steve playing the race card and engaging in identity politics. Yep, what a joke.

Follow the link and discover that racial discrimination was a real world complexity involved in WW II housing shortages which his selfish conservative heroes refused to even address - one of whom is an African American - Thomas Sowell.

Sorry sport but selfish individualism is all about choosing to exclude certain individuals from living in your neighborhood and if you have the majority you can incorporate that selfish interst into local covenants banning blacks from living in 80% of Chicago during WW II when those same blacks were needed to work in defense industries in Chicago.

If you don't like historical facts in economics, go debate something more your speed - like coloring books.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Remember my mentioning Steve’s tendency of presenting distractions rather than a reasoned response …

You in spades buddy, you in spades.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Did anyone assert that the United States was founded on Islam? Nope. Did Steve answer my question or address the substance of my comment? Nope.

Wrong. You avoided the Founding Fathers like a greased pig - as usual.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Steve’s inability to engage in critical thinking blinds him to the substance of my arguments, which as usual he believes he can rebut with a dismissive remark. He thinks I have “insulted” his philosophy when I have condemned it for what it is -- neo-Marxist, Progressivism in Christian drag.

Your "critical thinking" left you defending a position that was contradicted by your own source because you were to lazy to read the whole book.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

:rolleyes: Steve is neither a messenger or a prophet. He presents his own personal twisted interpretation of Christian theology to support his economic and political ideology. He is neither preaching a revealed truth handed to him from God-on-high or a logical argument, though he tries his best to pretend he is.

I am presenting historical documents.

You should try it sometime instead of endless caustic attacks on me.

A novel concept - address the historical documents - don't attack the messenger.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

I guess every forum is required to have at least one self anointed arrogant self righteous blow hard who believes they have God’s personal e-mail and have the authority to judge the righteous and the sinful. From ideologue to demagogue, to false prophet. Well, at least he’s growing.

And this forum's self righteous blow hard is staring you in the mirror.

I can hurl it back as fast as you can spit it out.

Ready to grow up yet?

Steve

Originally Posted by machinehead61

And you must demonize anyone who opposes your selfish individualism.

Your attempts to undermine the principles of individual freedom by calling it selfish shows just how morally bankrupt your arguments are.

Originally Posted by machinehead61

This isn't my "religious mission". This is documented Founding Fathers documents and writings.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787

Noah Webster:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]

Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

New York Spectator. August 23, 1831
“ The court of common pleas of Chester county, [New York] rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.