Basically the dude stated if you're not in favor of raising the minimum wage rate to $15-20 an hour, you hate poors and are sinning against God. I thought you folks got pissed when political figures used scripture. I guess it depends on which side of the aisle is playing the religious card.
Buttigieg invoked scripture at the Democratic debate
3,825 Views |
36 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by PacifistAg
What?
I'm sure several of us just got severely owned, it's just hard to tell which ones of us and exactly how.
Well, if he said that, then he's wrong. I'm sure many of us probably didn't watch the debate. I know I sure as heck didn't. That stuff, regardless of the side of the aisle, is toxic. This thread is evidence of that.Adorable Mason Reeves said:
Basically the dude stated if you're not in favor of raising the minimum wage rate to $15-20 an hour, you hate poors and are sinning against God. I thought you folks got pissed when political figures used scripture. I guess it depends on which side of the aisle is playing the religious card.
It's always fun when forum 16 stops by.Beer Baron said:
I'm sure several of us just got severely owned, it's just hard to tell which ones of us and exactly how.
Mayor Pete referenced Proverbs 14:31 and tried to tie that to government setting a minimum wage.
Yeah, that's an atrocious use of that verse. Not to mention, a $15 minimum wage will hurt the poor far more than it will help them. It reminds me of when I hear people claim that walls around Heaven offer biblical support for a wall at our border.powerbelly said:
Mayor Pete referenced Proverbs 14:31 and tried to tie that to government setting a minimum wage.
Scripture and politics do not mix. IMHO, the religious right and the religious left are both horrible.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I have no issue invoking scripture in a debate. If that is your reason for your policy stance then state it and we can discuss. I believe he's wrong, but since he opened with scripture that gives me an open door to discuss the religious angle. Many think religion should be left out completely. I think that is impossible.
dermdoc said:
Scripture and politics do not mix. IMHO, the religious right and the religious left are both horrible.
Disagree. My religious views fundamentally shape my political views. I think your view is more just disgruntlement towards extreme politics from both sides.
I'd be willing to bet your political views influence your religious views about as much.
It's funny how often I've heard Christians argue Jesus was a capitalist.
It's funny how often I've heard Christians argue Jesus was a capitalist.
I've never made that argument. But why would you care if that was my view?
When people convince themselves that their political views aren't just right but are will of god they lose the ability to compromise or change their mind based on evidence. Religion poisons politics. And politics will take advantage of and influence religion to its own purposes when intertwined.
Frok said:dermdoc said:
Scripture and politics do not mix. IMHO, the religious right and the religious left are both horrible.
Disagree. My religious views fundamentally shape my political views. I think your view is more just disgruntlement towards extreme politics from both sides.
Agree for the most part. My religious views definitely shape my political views. In fact, they define who I am.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I agree religion can lead to extreme views. Secular views can do the same. I just don't think you can separate your religion from politics. I'm sure my American political views shape some of my religious views as well. It's all intertwined in me.
Buttigieg's argument reminds me that the Romans heavily taxed their outlying areas and eventually seized Jerusalem temple gold after the siege to help support Romans who were not paid what many thought was a decent wage.
God: Shakedown Artist For the Welfare State?
This is one of my favorite quotes:
God: Shakedown Artist For the Welfare State?
This is one of my favorite quotes:
Quote:
Too bad Jesus wasted so much time in Jerusalem talking about the Kingdom of God rather than going to Rome to lobby for increased social spending on the provinces and economic benefits for the Jewish people. But even the more conservative National Association of Evangelicals has joined the Circle of Protection, while simultaneously, and incongruously, calling for fiscal responsibility.
Does Pete Rev. 22:15?
Aggrad08 said:
I'd be willing to bet your political views influence your religious views about as much.
It's funny how often I've heard Christians argue Jesus was a capitalist.
Parable of the talents.
Aggrad08 said:
I'd be willing to bet your political views influence your religious views about as much.
It's funny how often I've heard Christians argue Jesus was a capitalist.
Well, he was a carpenter who needed to earn a living before going into full time ministry.
Ags4DaWin said:Aggrad08 said:
I'd be willing to bet your political views influence your religious views about as much.
It's funny how often I've heard Christians argue Jesus was a capitalist.
Parable of the talents.
Go through the NT and you will see any argument for capitalism is laughable (and most any other system as well). This is a great example of your politics coloring your understanding of Jesus words.
Aggrad08 said:Ags4DaWin said:Aggrad08 said:
I'd be willing to bet your political views influence your religious views about as much.
It's funny how often I've heard Christians argue Jesus was a capitalist.
Parable of the talents.
Go through the NT and you will see any argument for capitalism is laughable (and most any other system as well). This is a great example of your politics coloring your understanding of Jesus words.
Pardon me for joining in here, but agriculture is probably the greatest example of capitalism, which is not some icon or object of worship but merely a way that nature works. The farmer invests with seed and labor, fertilizer and water and a crop results. Hopefully the product value exceeds the investment costs. Jesus' parable of the talents (investment in a monetary exchange system) as a type for spiritual investment would also seem to model this. In fact, we are all seeking to reap more than we sowed in our relationship with Jesus because HE gives the increasein grace, wonders, knowledge of him and strength in weakness. There are specific times when collective pooling of resources is agreeable to all and necessary for survival, such as in the early church in Judaea. But notice that merchants such as Lydia did not seem to abandon trade.
Agriculture isn't necessarily based on private ownership, in this period of rome you did have this, but you also had the Roman grain dole. And your own post is forced to acknowledge the communal pooling of resources in acts. You have to turn blinders on and stop thinking to think Jesus made anything resembling an endorsement of an economic model. A socialist could argue acts, Jesus statements about the rich and giving to the poor to argue that notion about as well.
Agreed that the bible isn't a text where one specific economic system is endorsed. The church's system isn't based on capital or means of production, but one centered on love. We give freely to those who need. We place others ahead of ourselves. We do so voluntarily. We store our treasures in heaven where they will never rust and fade away.
It's folly to say Jesus was a capitalist, socialist, or whatever '-ist' we throw out there. He is Love. That's our currency. That's our job.
It's folly to say Jesus was a capitalist, socialist, or whatever '-ist' we throw out there. He is Love. That's our currency. That's our job.
Aggrad08 said:
Agriculture isn't necessarily based on private ownership, in this period of rome you did have this, but you also had the Roman grain dole. And your own post is forced to acknowledge the communal pooling of resources in acts. You have to turn blinders on and stop thinking to think Jesus made anything resembling an endorsement of an economic model. A socialist could argue acts, Jesus statements about the rich and giving to the poor to argue that notion about as well.
I certainly have no ego or stake when it comes to justification for any economic system. I simply prefer to think of capitalism as that which utilized the natural human tendency to trade, invest and make one's own position ( or one's family position ) secure. It is one reason why people become doctors, lawyers, plumbers, tech professionals, managers, etc. Socialism's essential problem is that it does not accommodate basic human psychology and self interest. If it did, it would have functioned to improve places where it has been tried instead of impoverishing them.
I agree with much of that, it's nothing at all to do with religion though. And that's the point, a secular argument is easier to treat dispassionately and argue on it's merits. Worker owned means of production has no historical success stories. European capitalism with safety nets does as does American capitalism with smaller safety nets. And I've heard people argue the merits of both as being favored by someone acting Christlike. I'd rather just argue for which does better for society by some agreed upon metrics of well being.
But none of that strictly has anything to do with capitalism. You can have all that without capitalism. Capitalism is strictly regarding the ownership of trade and industry.Quote:
I certainly have no ego or stake when it comes to justification for any economic system. I simply prefer to think of capitalism as that which utilized the natural human tendency to trade, invest and make one's own position ( or one's family position ) secure. It is one reason why people become doctors, lawyers, plumbers, tech professionals, managers, etc. Socialism's essential problem is that it does not accommodate basic human psychology and self interest. If it did, it would have functioned to improve places where it has been tried instead of impoverishing them.
It's silly to say that Jesus was a capitalist based on the parable of the talents. Or that he was a fuedalist based on other parables. I agree with Pacifist - we find ourselves where we are, but we are not of the world. Shrewd as snakes is the name of the game here, and all things to all people. If we must become capitalists to serve capitalists, we become capitalists; to serve socialists, socialists.
Quote:
Parable of the talents.
He starts the parable by saying "For it will be like a...", which means that what he's teaching has nothing to do with the allegory he's using to make the point.
He's talking about the kingdom of God, not about an economic system.
No! He was clearly endorsing an economic system that would not be implemented for another 1,600 years.diehard03 said:Quote:
Parable of the talents.
He starts the parable by saying "For it will be like a...", which means that what he's teaching has nothing to do with the allegory he's using to make the point.
He's talking about the kingdom of God, not about an economic system.
To actually become a socialist would require that I steal from others. And I do not covet not desire to possess other's property. Socialism is at its heart a forced redistribution of a product from a central authority. So I cannot conceive of becoming real socialist. It would be like becoming a Nazi to appeal to Nazis IMHO.
All government requires the forced redistribution of wealth. With statists, it's solely a debate over the scope of such redistribution.UTExan said:
To actually become a socialist would require that I steal from others. And I do not covet not desire to possess other's property. Socialism is at its heart a forced redistribution of a product from a central authority. So I cannot conceive of becoming real socialist. It would be like becoming a Nazi to appeal to Nazis IMHO.
PacifistAg said:All government requires the forced redistribution of wealth. With statists, it's solely a debate over the scope of such redistribution.UTExan said:
To actually become a socialist would require that I steal from others. And I do not covet not desire to possess other's property. Socialism is at its heart a forced redistribution of a product from a central authority. So I cannot conceive of becoming real socialist. It would be like becoming a Nazi to appeal to Nazis IMHO.
And that of course, depends on how much statist power one is willing to tolerate. I have no problem with valid infrastructure, defense, emergency services, eleemosynary institutions etc. if those things promote human welfare.
Yes, but the point is that you're already embracing socialism to some degree. Those who go far beyond you would probably argue that their socialism "promotes human welfare" as well. That's what makes comments like yours come across as meaningless, because it's not socialism you're rejecting. It's just you reject socialism once it reaches a particular point. But yours still requires confiscation and redistribution of wealth.UTExan said:PacifistAg said:All government requires the forced redistribution of wealth. With statists, it's solely a debate over the scope of such redistribution.UTExan said:
To actually become a socialist would require that I steal from others. And I do not covet not desire to possess other's property. Socialism is at its heart a forced redistribution of a product from a central authority. So I cannot conceive of becoming real socialist. It would be like becoming a Nazi to appeal to Nazis IMHO.
And that of course, depends on how much statist power one is willing to tolerate. I have no problem with valid infrastructure, defense, emergency services, eleemosynary institutions etc. if those things promote human welfare.
PacifistAg said:Yes, but the point is that you're already embracing socialism to some degree. Those who go far beyond you would probably argue that their socialism "promotes human welfare" as well. That's what makes comments like yours come across as meaningless, because it's not socialism you're rejecting. It's just you reject socialism once it reaches a particular point. But yours still requires confiscation and redistribution of wealth.UTExan said:PacifistAg said:All government requires the forced redistribution of wealth. With statists, it's solely a debate over the scope of such redistribution.UTExan said:
To actually become a socialist would require that I steal from others. And I do not covet not desire to possess other's property. Socialism is at its heart a forced redistribution of a product from a central authority. So I cannot conceive of becoming real socialist. It would be like becoming a Nazi to appeal to Nazis IMHO.
And that of course, depends on how much statist power one is willing to tolerate. I have no problem with valid infrastructure, defense, emergency services, eleemosynary institutions etc. if those things promote human welfare.
You need to define terms to continue this in any meaningful way. You're conflating the organization of economies with government in a way that doesn't make sense. Capitalism is not a form of government, that the presence of a regulation or interference negates it with even the smallest increment and turns it into socialism. Private ownership and property still exists within capitalist societies that have governments.
PacifistAg said:Yes, but the point is that you're already embracing socialism to some degree. Those who go far beyond you would probably argue that their socialism "promotes human welfare" as well. That's what makes comments like yours come across as meaningless, because it's not socialism you're rejecting. It's just you reject socialism once it reaches a particular point. But yours still requires confiscation and redistribution of wealth.UTExan said:PacifistAg said:All government requires the forced redistribution of wealth. With statists, it's solely a debate over the scope of such redistribution.UTExan said:
To actually become a socialist would require that I steal from others. And I do not covet not desire to possess other's property. Socialism is at its heart a forced redistribution of a product from a central authority. So I cannot conceive of becoming real socialist. It would be like becoming a Nazi to appeal to Nazis IMHO.
And that of course, depends on how much statist power one is willing to tolerate. I have no problem with valid infrastructure, defense, emergency services, eleemosynary institutions etc. if those things promote human welfare.
Then one would theoretically argue that any government is socialism. And I am certain we could recreate the very arguments articulated in the Federalist papers or any precedent debates about the role and scope of government. But since some government is better than Hobbes' bleak description of nature without governance, I think what we have, for a fallen world is actually pretty decent; so much so that the US attracts much of humanity that would like to come here. My real critiques are that we need a much more robust mental health care system, including many more residential treatment facilities, and better policing of health care/prescription costs. We also need to reform some of our criminal justice system to minimize incarceration for those offenders who are not a threat to public safety and someone has to police commercial entities to insure they do not violate laws and rules of trade. And somebody has to play the referee in all that. And somebody has to pay for roads. And I am glad to be taxed for those functions.
Featured Stories
See All
40:58
14h ago
5.1k
Baseball Thoughts: Aggies ascend to No. 1 after Commodore crushing
by Ryan Brauninger
Third baseman Gavin Grahovac named SEC's Freshman of the Week
by Richard Zane
No. 1! Texas A&M claims top spot in D1Baseball's latest rankings
by Richard Zane