Member Discussions

Are you advocating that the Christian church take over the government? If you are, I'm pretty sure every non-Christian in the United States will have major issue with that, as well as the more moderate Christians who actually believe that everyone in the US doesn't have to believe in the same deities or religious practices, but should all obey the same laws.

Quick point - I believe Tyche used the quote you refer to to differentiate between charity and welfare. If anything, the passage supports the separation of Church and State since it argues that, in the case of welfare, the government is sticking its paws into what should be a personal and spiritual matter. I'm not sure I agree.

Once again, and finally, Massaria, your misinterpretation of my point does not make me a liar.

'It's all a misunderstanding!' Huh?
Well, explain it to me then. I don't see how you could. However, I don't think you're stupid enough to make such a blatant lie. Rather, I think you got all wound up and forgot what you said earlier in the discussion.
That still makes you a liar, albeit one with a good conscience.

Further, if admittedly, it doesn't matter much, why in the world are you making such a huge deal of of it?

That's funny - I didn't think I was the one making a big deal of this. I thought that was you and wolfpaw et al.
You were the one replying to me, remember?
You have been the one to demand arguments and examples all along, remember?

If you want to convince someone else, ...

I don't. I told you what I want.

I think we're all pretty tired of the "Icculus can be, no he can't be" discussion... so if you want to make a new point, I certainly hope you make it soon.

I don't want to make a new point, neither do I need to. I think I've made all the necessary arguments by now - but if, on the other hand, you feel an urge to attack my opinions further, feel free to take all the time you need to make it a good one.

Keriwena:
The fact that people aren't perfect seems to really bother you, and that lack of reality makes your judgment pretty useless to the rest of us.

It doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that people, in this case Icculus, don't act accordingly.
I'd claim that your reading comprehension makes your posts pretty much a waste of time to the rest of us.

Drizzt1216:
Of course Icculus is partial, I wouldn't want a moderator that wasn't, in fact it's impossible to have a moderator that isn't, the word moderator is based off of the word moderate, a moderator therefore keeps things moderate on a forum or discussion, by controlling what users or participants can or can't post/say.

Yes, it is the moderators job to determine whether a given post is proper for a given forum - the point is that it's a problem if the moderator doesn't use the same standard for all users. Icculus can be partial to a clean language, for example, as long as he uses the same standard for clean language for everyone.

Drizzt1216:
Yes you can...having expectations or standards for others but not yourself doesn't make you a hipocrite at all...but it does make you a hypocrite.

I have different standards to policemen when it comes to breaking up violence in the streets, than I do to myself.
I have different standards to a ph. d. in medicine when it comes to telling me why my tummy hurts, than I do to myself.
And yes, I have different standards to forum moderators when it comes to independance of those he moderates, than I do to myself.
Odd, isn't it, how I can expect something different from someone who does something I do not.
Naturally, if I were moderating a forum, I'd hold myself to the same standard, at least.

To those who are trying to explain, for the 10th time, how icculus runs a private site and can do as he please: I understand that.
That doesn't mean I'll forego on my priviledge to answer those who make arguments against my view, or that I'll keep silent when I disagree with icculus.

Mass.

I have different standards to policemen when it comes to breaking up violence in the streets, than I do to myself.
I have different standards to a ph. d. in medicine when it comes to telling me why my tummy hurts, than I do to myself.
And yes, I have different standards to forum moderators when it comes to independance of those he moderates, than I do to myself.
Odd, isn't it, how I can expect something different from someone who does something I do not.
Naturally, if I were moderating a forum, I'd hold myself to the same standard, at least.

Police and Ph.D are both horrible examples in that they are trained professionals in their particular fields and of course should be met by higher standards in their particular fields. The difference is everyone can be a moderator, so Icculus is a normal everyday person without special certification to moderate, yes you expect him to be impartial, when ALL humans are partial.

Quick point - I believe Tyche used the quote you refer to to differentiate between charity and welfare. If anything, the passage supports the separation of Church and State since it argues that, in the case of welfare, the government is sticking its paws into what should be a personal and spiritual matter.

Thank you for pointing out how little you know of Tyche, he has never done a very good job of hiding the fact that he thinks the government and religion should be strongly tied together. He may have never said such, but he has shown vidence of thinking such STRONGLY in the past. Some such cases are an old post by him claiming that homosexuality should be illegal and compares it to pedophilia, incest, and beastiality. The following quote from this thread does as well...

whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside

Basicallty that paragraph states that the Church should volunteer to do such things such as helping the poor and needy, and not the government, or soceity itself. Basically what this would equate to is Christians should rely on the church to help them and those who aren't religious or Christians can go *CENSORED* themselves and never get a dime to help themselves with.

Nephew of Lies! Second-cousin of Discontent, I command ye to yield! Get back Thread of Darkness! I say, get out of Mud Humor and Anecdotes and back into the pit from whence ye came!
Foul venomous demon, behold this ancient relic and its virtuous powers and be repelled by its light most holy...
*holds up a Tickle-Me Elmo*
Thread of Darkness, I command ye to leave this innocent topic! Be gone! Vamoose! Scarper!

With that exorcism of Mud Humor and Anecdotes over and done with, who is up for some tea and cake?

Thank you for pointing out how little you know of Tyche, he has never done a very good job of hiding the fact that he thinks the government and religion should be strongly tied together. He may have never said such, but he has shown vidence of thinking such STRONGLY in the past.

You're right in that I don't know Tyche. The passage he quoted in his earlier post did not advocate a Christian theocracy in the U.S, but maybe Tyche himself does.

Basically what this would equate to is Christians should rely on the church to help them and those who aren't religious or Christians can go *CENSORED* themselves and never get a dime to help themselves with.

Was this your take on the same passage I referred to? I disagree. The author does argue that charity is a spiritual act, and he does speak from a Christian perspective, but nowhere does the passage imply that charity should only be bestowed upon Christians. Maybe you mean that Tyche himself feels that way? That's a pretty un-Christian view, but...you know Tyche and I don't.

That's a pretty un-Christian view,

From what I've seen it's not most Christian's view, but is for what I would put into a group I'll call the "Radical Christians". They teach that unless you go to church and repent on a weekly basis you will burn in hell. They mutter prayers under their breath as an attempt to *save* me because I'm openly an athiest. (Openly not as in I try to make others have the sae believes or lack thereod, but if asked what my beliefs are I admit to being an athiest). They vote for gay marraige to be illegal, they always vote for what benefits their religion most, not what benefits the nation as a whole. This certainly is not the view of all Christians but from what I have seen of Tyche he falls into the category of "Radical Christians".

I don't want to make a new point, neither do I need to. I think I've made all the necessary arguments by now - but if, on the other hand, you feel an urge to attack my opinions further, feel free to take all the time you need to make it a good one.
Attacking your opinions? You opened up your opinions to debate when you said we should go changing the site based on them in an open forum. Further, if you so believe you've made the necessary arguments by now, then why do you so adamantly refuse to accommodate the numerous people asking you, nicely or not, to stop talking about this. (By the way, that was rhetorical.)

As well, I don't feel, at all, the burden of responsibility for defending myself against your misinterpretation. If you were actually interested in finding out anything, rather than making baseless (or at most, loosely concluded) accusations, you could have, and would have, just asked. If you *really* want to have such a discussion, drop the accusations, and quote me. Otherwise, kindly stop.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

KA: Tyche, all that drivel is contrary to the Constitution, since the Constitution SEPARATES CHURCH AND STATE.

I know posting any Christian references at all is red meat for marxists, communists and atheist proselytizers, so your response was not unexpected. However, there were seven links from separate sources, only one of which uses religious references in the arguments.

The quotation does not even argue an issue pertaining to church vs. state. Are you that stunningly ignorant of church vs. state issues in this country that you do not know that any "establishment" controversy would require that legislation be shewn to promote it?! It argues against social welfare legislation!

Regardless of which side of the "establishment" issue one is, your amusing "separation" side trip is further illustrative of your historical ignorance. It was not until the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case that there was any reference to any "separation between church and State" doctrine in any jurisprudence. That case cited not prior law, but Virginia Governor Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as one of its sources (see FDR reference later). The phrase has been increasingly used out of context by the nation's courts ever since. So it is worthy to note that in the Baer vs. Kolmorgen (1958), that a dissenting Supreme Court Justice warned, "If this Court doesn't stop citing, 'separation between church and State,' the American People will very likely begin to think it is part of the Constitution!"

He could not have been more prophetic.

KA: Christian mortal ethics DO NOT have a place in US Govt policy, federal law, etc. Did you somehow neglect to recall that?

No, surely you've been reading the old Communist Soviet Constitution (article 54?) that prohibits religion. One had to have been raised and educated by marxists or communists to write the above lunacy. What I'd like to know is what they did to you to keep you away from books?

KA: Your same arguments against taxation to fund welfare, could be used to go against every single solitary thing the government funds, such as education, foreign policy, the US Military, and a whole lot more.

There are surely other examples of legislated socialism where the arguments would apply. Unfortunately until you really grasp what theft is, you are going to continue to make mistaken comparisons with, for example, "the US military".

KA: You claim I am a Marxist and advocate the redistribution of wealth.
...
Oh, and by the way, Tyche, the people you got the quote from, apparently never read the bible. Because I have and it doesn't say a flippin thing about welfare, or that the nations who have dominion over their citizens shouldn't take care of those citizens. If a nation doesn't care for its citizens, what good is the government of that nation?
...
Maybe you should re-read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

You consistently and clearly advocate the forced redistribution of wealth. Socialists, marxists and communists all advocate that same particular egalitarianism. Why do you chafe under labels that more accurately represent your views, and instead attempt to pass yourself off as a capitalist?

While the Biblical omission argument is amusing, it does indeed say a great deal about theft and charity. Only a simpleton living in the singularity of NOW, could fail to grasp why "welfare" wouldn't be mentioned.

However what is really germane to the argument is the omission of anything in the Constitution providing the power to legislate welfare...

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks." - Congressman Davy Crockett

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The last one is interesting in that Roosevelt's acts as president were clearly contradictory. As most of his programs were found unconstitutional, after four terms, he was eventually able to pack the supreme court with fellow socialist ideologues to ensure that he eventually got many of them through.

KA: Some people aren't lucky in their life, and sometimes bad things happen to good people. By YOUR thoughts, those people should be left to die from starvation or the elements. And you know what? Thats one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life. Its also not a very Christian view. I believe Christ said that we should help our neighbors. Does it really matter if the neighbor is a few hundred miles away?

Nothing I wrote denies that. I specifically wrote, "Then again, if you had asked me personally to give you shelter and food, no doubt I would have helped you out in some way." It's not my want to write unnecessary exposition. And as you've claimed to read the Bible, you should understand why I do not engage in any competitive discussion of my charity.

Since you have a lot to say about failures and misguided wars, there is a compelling analogy. While the poverty rate declined from 1950 to 1965 at 1% a year, a democrat controlled Congress and President recklessly declared and embarked on a misguided "War on Poverty". As a result of this destructive "war" the poverty rate immediately increased and has stagnated. With a 35% overhead (only 65 cents on the dollar makes it to the targets), it's pretty obvious that the incompetent generals running this inefficient "war", would be demoted or even court martialed had they been running a "war" with our armed forces. After after 40 years of constant "war" and the profligate expenditure of 5 trillion dollars of the productive citizenzry's sweat and treasure, it should be crystal clear that this "war" is clearly a quagmire and cannot be won.

Stop the WAR!
Bring our millions of bureaucrats home NOW!

From Island Dog:

The author does argue that charity is a spiritual act,

How is charity a spiritual act? Charity does not rely on spirituality. Spirtuality deals with things such as religion and faith, ghosts, etc. Charity is the giving of time, money or other things to another without expectation of anything in return, even a thank you.

Sometimes "charity" is a rich person or company's way of reducing taxes, while thats actually not technically charity, they tend to give to places called charities, so we'll let it slide.


From Tyche:

I know posting any Christian references at all is red meat for marxists, communists and atheist proselytizers, so your response was not unexpected. However, there were seven links from separate sources, only one of which uses religious references in the arguments.

Ummmm, red meat? Did you ever stop once to think maybe I have issues with Christian belief shoved down my throat and told its the only way because I'm not Christian? Then again, I'm also not an Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Hindi, or a slew of other religions most of which pre-date Christianity and extolled the virtues Christianity does before Christ was conceived. I'm Jewish, guess what, Christianity is an offshoot of MY religion. Jesus was Jewish. He went to the cross being Jewish. It was his disciples, NOT him who created Christianity. Jesus was a nice Jewish boy who followed the Old Testament, went to Temple, studied Torah, etc. So, since it was good enough for Jesus to be Jewish and love ALL huamnity, how come its not good for you, Tyche? Jesus routinely helped all who came to him, whether Jew or Gentile, young or old, poor or rich and treated everyone the same. Not being very true to your Son of God, are you, you hypocritical pompous religious fanatic.

As to the article not involving Church & State you ignorant fool, any time someone says that the Government should have their responsibilities replaced by a religious organization, it become an issue of church and state. The moment he invoked God, it became an issue.

From Tyche:

Regardless of which side of the "establishment" issue one is, your amusing "separation" side trip is further illustrative of your historical ignorance.

Hey Tyche: We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal. That didn't mean just Christians. Also, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom from persecution to ALL religions and non-religious people. Last I checked that means religion has no place in the governing of the United States. Which means there will be a separation between Church and State.

From Tyche:

No, surely you've been reading the old Communist Soviet Constitution (article 54?) that prohibits religion. One had to have been raised and educated by marxists or communists to write the above lunacy. What I'd like to know is what they did to you to keep you away from books?


Keeping religion out of the government isn't communist you ignorant fool, its LOGICAL. Once you place one religion's moral ethical code of conduct before others there will be persecution of other religions. Christianity has shown many times since its inception in the 1st century AD that it is intolerant of ANY other religion aside from itself, and also those within its own religion who disagree with whichever nitwit is in charge of the churches this week. Examples: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition. In the crusades, Christian Knights and Priests (priests used maces, not swords) attempted to wrest the "Holy Land" from the infidels (Jews and Muslims) and purify and reclaim it for CHRISTIANS. They rode through Jerusalem and SLAUGHTERED as many men, women, children and livestock as they possibly could. WOMEN AND CHILDREN, Tyche, all in the name of Jesus, who if I recall said that ALL men are brothers and that we should raise no hand against each other and shed no blood of our brothers.

And by the way, I'm an avid reader, of many subjects, history, science fiction, mystery, and fantasy. I've got a vast library of books in my home, and continue to collect more every month. Prior to a flood in my parents' basement, I had a very large collection of old books from such wonderous authors as Shakespere, Milton, Ovid, Socrates, Pluto, and many more. Your insinuation that I'm an illiterate is beyond words foolish. I also happen to have in my home a copy of the Torah which is over 20 yrs old, and a Christian bible or 2, which I have read cover to cover and studied over the years.

Theft is the STEALING of someone else's property. Taxes aren't stealing. And since tax money is already allocated towards Welfare, how am *I* advocating the redistribution of anything? I've stated it is the government's responsibility to care for its citizens' BASIC SURVIVAL NEEDS. And for THAT you call me a communist, socialist, and a marxist? I have never once stated that everyone should toss all their hard earned money into a pool or give it all to the government for the government to dole out to everyone equally.. THAT would be communistic and socialistic and whatever other babble you're spewing. There is a big difference that obviously you're too blind in your beliefs to see or comprehend. BASIC HUMAN SURVIVAL IS THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY. If someone lost their job, or got hurt, the government damn well should provide food, clothing and shelter to that person until that person is able to care for themselves, and to assist in the return to work for that person as soon as possible. Even Jesus provided for his followers regularly. The whole Sermon on the Mount thing, where Jesus provided breads for his followers is no different than the government doing the same.

From Tyche:

While the Biblical omission argument is amusing, it does indeed say a great deal about theft and charity. Only a simpleton living in the singularity of NOW, could fail to grasp why "welfare" wouldn't be mentioned.


Um, actually, it WAS dealt with in the Bible. In the Old Testament actually. We are commanded by God to care for the needy, the poor, the starving, not just each individual, but also Kings and Princes, etc. One of the things Saul and David were both commanded to do by Samuel was to provide for everyone in the Kingdom so there was no starvation and that if someone was without shelter, that another should take them in and provide them with shelter.

Your whole score of quotes are great, but they are also opinions. Also, you're neglecting to remember something, the Federal government, as far as I know does not legislate welfare, but the States do. I didn't apply for a Federally funded welfare program, I applied for it from the State of New Jersey. I've said the the government should, and whether it be the Federal or State, or Municipal, the government should safeguard the ability for its citizens to live. Without its citizens, there is no government.

You alluded to the War on Poverty, yeah, I agree, its mismanaged as all hell. That doesn't mean its wrong. It means it needs to be fixed. Of course, instead of fixing something that is broken, you think it should just be tossed.... Does that mean if someone is sick, they shouldn't go to a doctor? Since Social Security is another "social welfare" type program, should that mean people who've worked and contributed for 40+ years are committing theft when they collect social security? Guess there are a whole lot of thieves in the world... I'm suprised you don't advocate the murder of those who can no longer contribute to the workforce for whatever reason. I wonder if you plan on collecting Social Security when you retire...if so, you're a thief, a communist, socialist, and marxist.

Christianity has shown many times since its inception in the 1st century AD that it is intolerant of ANY other religion aside from itself,
Just an aside, I certainly hope you don't think that in a literal sense. The two examples you provided were of Catholicism, not Christianity as a whole. As well, they were quite some time ago. (Depending on the reference), closer to the time of large movements of reformation. Setting that aside, *any* group (especially a religious one), can be scrutinized for the behavior of a few misguided individuals or events. In my understanding, the Bible can be quoted in numerous places to teach tolerance and care for people of other faiths, and from my experience, it's those principals the average Christian follows.

Anyway, Best of Luck,
-Jess

Police and Ph.D are both horrible examples in that they are trained professionals in their particular fields and of course should be met by higher standards in their particular fields.

They illustrate how I can have expectations to others that are different - higher even - than those I have to myself, without being a hipocrite.

The difference is everyone can be a moderator, so Icculus is a normal everyday person without special certification to moderate, ...

Icculus does something that I don't, therefore I can expect something of him that I don't expect of myself. If you ride your bicycle, I can expect you to adhere to the laws reguarding riding a bicycle - even if I don't ride the bicycle myself.

... yes you expect him to be impartial, when ALL humans are partial.

Wrong.
I expect him to set up a site or system that prevents preferencial treatment of people in general, but his financial supporters in particular.

He might accomplish this in at least three ways:

1) Let someone else modarate the site. Someone who isn't paid to do so. Someone who has 'nothing to lose'.
2) Allow the members to say what they want (and yes, there could still be a ban of porn and foul language).
3) Stop accepting money.

Mass.

Attacking your opinions? You opened up your opinions to debate when you said we should go changing the site based on them in an open forum.

I'm not complaining. I'm saying that if this is a big deal, you're the one making it so.

Further, if you so believe you've made the necessary arguments by now, then why do you so adamantly refuse to accommodate the numerous people asking you, nicely or not, to stop talking about this. (By the way, that was rhetorical.)

So rhetorical means I don't need to answer it?
Phew.

If you *really* want to have such a discussion, drop the accusations, and quote me.

But my dearest jess, I already did.

In post 155 from Tue Dec 19 you wrote:

And by the way... for the last time. I never, ever, ever said he probably will be anything. *I* am not speculating over future events. I am presenting *possibilities*. You, however, are refusing to acknowledge those possibilities. I'm not rephrasing any more of what I've already said.

Then, quoting you, in post 159 of Dec 20 I wrote:

And by the way... for the last time. I never, ever, ever said he probably will be anything. *I* am not speculating over future events. I am presenting *possibilities*.


That's a boldfaced lie. And since it's so easily revealed as such, it's a poor one at that:

It's not my opinion that everyone will start jumping on reporting things now... but in either case, it's all just a matter of opinion, on both our parts. If a problem arose with the function, Icculus would find a way to deal with it, I'm sure.

And I'm saying that's an unfair statement. I believe he has, up to this point, and I believe he will continue to [be impartial].

Since it is possible for him to be impartial, I'm saying that your point is that you don't believe he will be, and my point is that I do believe he will.

My opinion is that "I believe he will be" [impartial].

You believe Icculus will be unfair. I believe he won't.

No. I think it's quite possible he will be fair. Personally, it's my opinion he will be, but I'm certainly open to the possibility he won't.

Is that enough quotes for you?

Mass.

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

-Crat

Hm. I can see how you, Tyche, has some merit in your argument, if I understand it right, that 'government charity' results in a population who, perhaps correctly, view the poor and needy as 'not their problem'. That's why they pay taxes, after all. If people are poor and hungry, it's not their fault - they did their part through taxation.

But that's as far as I can see reason in this view.

That you're somehow 'hurt' or compromised spiritually is hard to see. Nothing keeps you from giving more than you're required to do.

That's it's unconstitutional is a hilarious argument to me. You Merrycans seem to revere this paper as some form of holy relic.
It's an old document by now, obviously it'll need updates and ammendments, of which it has many already.
The argument that we shouldn't have social welfare because some law says we shouldn't, is silly. We'll just change that law if we come to some form of agreement, no?

That the poor will be just as well of without welfare, because good, charitable people like yourself will give them what they need is a thoroughly naive standpoint - don't tell me you don't know that.
Yes, perhaps private people wont give out their money to charity because they're used to the state doing it for them, but that doesn't mean we can disregard it.

Perhaps some religious heads argue against public welfare not because it's bad for peoples' character or spirit, but because they feel the government is moving into their domain? That the church and parishioners is not the main source of social security is, in my eyes, a major contributor to the dwindling prominence of the old religions (a good thing in my eyes).
Charity makes the recipient grateful, and if the charity come from the church, that gratefulness is repaid in church - perhaps even with faith.

It's unfortunate that another result of public welfare is that to many people, it's become more a right than a gift, or charity. People who receive such things need someone to thank, I think - and it's pretty hard to thank a nation as such. They become complacent and think of it as their right, rather then a temporary help to get back on their feet.
It's not ideal, but it's far better than the unfathomable horrors that no public charity would bring about.

Heh, perhaps the solution could be to let both recipients and tax-payers know who they're being supported by or supporting.

"This month, your welfare check was paid by mrs. Johnson in St. Anna." ;-)

Mass.

Everyone but Massaria can probably skip over this whole post.

You notice, of course, that every quote you provided contains the words "I believe". As previously discussed, you must understand an absolutely *major* difference, and in this case one which is essential to understand, between "He will" and "I believe he will". Normally, this would be an issue of semantics, but in this case, where we were discussing making alterations based on those beliefs (whether or not they were termed as such), that is not the case. You made the statements, "He will", and "He can't". I made the statements, "You can't know he will" and "He can". Your statements are absolutes, which entirely discount the fact that they are opinions, but rather are passed off as fact. My statements are not absolute, but rather statements of possibility. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, I can describe further. Please ask me.

My initial statement is aimed at that point. As you quoted me: I never, ever, ever said he probably will be anything. *I* am not speculating over future events. I am presenting *possibilities*.
What I was saying is, I never made the statement "He will", or even, "He probably will". Nor did I start a discussion about what might come to pass, without providing evidence to support it. (i.e. I did not speculate). I presented possibilities of what might occur, and I did that only to show you that there is more than just one, that being "He will", and "He can't", which you presented. As a result, the statements of "I believe" do not pertain to that quote, as they are not speculation, nor are they statements of absolute probability or absolute likelihood. Instead, they were an attempt to bring you to the realization that your statements were only an opinion, not a fact, and that there was (and is) more than just one opinion about the topic.

Hopefully now you understand why it was your misinterpretation which caused the problem, and hence why calling me a liar without at least pursuing the misunderstanding first was ridiculous. Thanks anyway though.

I'm not complaining. I'm saying that if this is a big deal, you're the one making it so.
Fine, whatever. If it'll make you happy, I'll take the blame for making it a big deal. Personally, I find that laughable, but whatever. That being said, can we drop this discussion now?

Best of Luck,
-Jess

How is charity a spiritual act? Charity does not rely on spirituality. Spirtuality deals with things such as religion and faith, ghosts, etc. Charity is the giving of time, money or other things to another without expectation of anything in return, even a thank you.

I agree with you. Charity doesn't have to be a religious or spiritual act. Like most things, it depends on the perspective of the person giving the charity. From a Christian perspective, giving charity is an act of worship. In a parable, Jesus explains that any service to those in need is a service to God.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. – Matthew 25:34-36

James offers this:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. – James 1:27

From Jess:

Just an aside, I certainly hope you don't think that in a literal sense. The two examples you provided were of Catholicism, not Christianity as a whole.

No, I don't think of it in the literal sense, but even in modern day there are examples of Christians being intolerant of other religions, such as the Puritans forcibly trying to convert American Indians, who they saw as heathens. Same with Christians (or Catholics, I forget) doing the same thing to Mexicans after the United States became a country. In recent years, there have been the torching of Jewish temples, homes, etc. The KKK (a Christian militant fringe group) who does the above, as well as routinely beats up Jews, blacks, etc. Religious fantatics, of course, aren't just Christians, as evidenced by the fringe militant Muslims who become terrorists and have been waging a "holy war" on Jews and others for many years. Basically I'm saying religious fantasicm of any type, intolerence of any type based on who's God is better is a detriment to civilization.

To Island Dog:

Yes, Charity can be a spiritual thing, but in and of itself it doesn't have to be, yet Tyche would have us believe it is and should only be a spiritual thing. In Judaism, charity is considered a Mitzvah, a good deed. Then again, so is helping someone walk across the street, being kind and loving to your family, friends and strangers, becoming educated, and more. When a Jewish child has their Bar or Bat Mitzvah, they become responsible for the 316 Commandments from God, and guess what? 80% of that have little to do with religion, most have to do with life. Everything from taking care of yourself, eating healthy, and even sex. (Aint it amazing? God commands us to have sex, not just for procreation, but also to enjoy it, but Catholics and even many branches of Christianity and other religions based from Judaism condemn sex and say it should only be used for procreation and even deny their religious leaders from having it. LOL)

Anyway, yes, charity can be a lot of things, but it doesn't mean that the government should be any less charitable with their citizens than its citizens should be charitable to each other individually.

As previously discussed, you must understand an absolutely *major* difference, and in this case one which is essential to understand, between "He will" and "I believe he will". ...
Your statements are absolutes, which entirely discount the fact that they are opinions, but rather are passed off as fact.

I understand perfectly, and have done for some time now. I've already explained to you that I was speaking about reasonable, natural behaviour - not the behavioural pattern of a phychotic scizophrenic.
That I said 'He cannot be impartail' was never meant as a fact of probability (i.e. that it's a scientific impossibility), but one of common phychology and good sense.
It stands to reason, as several people besides myself have already acknowledged.

What I was saying is, I never made the statement "He will", or even, "He probably will".

I beg the differ.
You've said "I think it's quite possible he will be fair."
How is that different from "He probably will"?.

Nor did I start a discussion about what might come to pass, without providing evidence to support it. (i.e. I did not speculate).

You speculate as much as I - I'd even say that when you claim 'I believe he will be fair', you're on much more shaky ground than I. I, at least, have good common sense on my side, while you're basing your view on two cases which could hardly be more clear-cut, two cases where only a infant would act differently.

As a result, the statements of "I believe" do not pertain to that quote, as they are not speculation, nor are they statements of absolute probability or absolute likelihood.

So... Hm. Let me get this straight before I go jumping on you. When you say 'I believe', it's not speculation, but on the other hand it's not 'absolute likelihood' either (I assume you mean something to the effect of 'fact' here?), then what is it?

As stated above, I consider it not only speculation, but incorrect speculation as well. Thus you certainly told a lie, as you in fact did more than present possibilitites: you've repeatedly said that you think he'll be fair, which is the same as outlining what you believe to be a probable course of action in the future.

I'm somewhat surprised that you've opted for this line of argument - that you're arguing it at all, in fact.

Instead, they were an attempt to bring you to the realization that your statements were only an opinion, not a fact, and that there was (and is) more than just one opinion about the topic.

Not 'only an opinion' - it's a very reasonable, obvious opinion that you are apparently the last to oppose.

Fine, whatever. If it'll make you happy, I'll take the blame for making it a big deal. Personally, I find that laughable, but whatever.

Nono. Either you take the 'blame' (shame on you!), or you find it laughable - not both at once.
Think about it once more, will you - who's replying to whom?

That being said, can we drop this discussion now?

You said it yourself Jess. If you'd like the discussion to end, you can just stop replying.
Easy.

Mass.

< INSERT AKWARD SILENCE HERE >

KA: Did you ever stop once to think maybe I have issues with Christian belief shoved down my throat and told its the only way because I'm not Christian?

Then you should quote what was shoved down your throat and just where you were told it was the only way.

KA: Jesus was Jewish....blah blah blah blah

Yes, while your particular Jewish view of Jesus is interesting, I simply fail to see any relevance to the argument.

KA: As to the article not involving Church & State you ignorant fool, any time someone says that the Government should have their responsibilities replaced by a religious organization, it become an issue of church and state. The moment he invoked God, it became an issue.

So the moment President Lyndon Johnson invoked God in proposing the Welfare system, it became an issue of church and state?! And that when he proposed that the government engage in activities previously done almost exclusively by private religious institutions, he was violating the "separation of church and state" clause? Now if you want to get really offended then go search the congressional record for the word Christ. There are thousands of hits on where our representatives and senators are arguing both for and against legislation using Christian arguments. Unfortunately the legislative record from 1965 debates is not online. Your view of what constitutes a "church vs. state" issue is ignorant unsupportable nonsense. And quite comparable to the Soviet Communist view on religion in governance.

Secondly even more interesting is the implication that the Federal government had abrogated it responsibilities for the first 176 years of its existence because there was no Welfare program.

And finally, the argument was "Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap." and not your fictional argument, "someone says that the Government should have their responsibilities replaced by a religious organization".

KA: Hey Tyche: We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal. That didn't mean just Christians. Also, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom from persecution to ALL religions and non-religious people. Last I checked that means religion has no place in the governing of the United States. Which means there will be a separation between Church and State.

First off "ALL men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence not from the Constitution and the DoI is not a document that describes how this nation is governed. I would have thought 6th graders knew that. By high school they know that what was meant was that "equality" is political equality. It's only after being brainwashed at college by a marxist professors, that they think it means economic equality, or all religions are equal.

The 1st amendment to Constitution says simply, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

And there's nothing about persecution in there either. The Constitution wasn't written with all religions in mind as we'd certainly persecute the hell out of Mayans and Aztecs, or worshippers of Moloch and Baal. It was written by and for a Christian people, which coincidently is not at all incompatible nor injurious to Jews.

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

- John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

KA: Keeping religion out of the government isn't communist you ignorant fool, its LOGICAL.

No it's marxist and communist drivel, you ignorant slut.

KA: And by the way, I'm an avid reader, of many subjects, history, science fiction, mystery, and fantasy. I've got a vast library of books in my home, and continue to collect more every month. Prior to a flood in my parents' basement, I had a very large collection of old books from such wonderous authors as Shakespere, Milton, Ovid, Socrates, Pluto, and many more.

Well I have to admit you are pretty strong on the fantasy and science fiction. Hmm... Pluto? Is that a Walt Disney book?

KA: Theft is the STEALING of someone else's property. Taxes aren't stealing. And since tax money is already allocated towards Welfare, how am *I* advocating the redistribution of anything?

If the law was to take 20% of the income of those making less than $100,000 a year and redistribute it those making over $100,000 it would be theft and forced income redistribution. It's also theft in the reverse direction. The argument is NOT that all taxes are theft.

KA: Your whole score of quotes are great, but they are also opinions.

Look James Madison wrote the blooming Constitution so I think his informed opinion counts just a wee bit more than some bleeding red marxist shouting, "BASIC HUMAN SURVIVAL IS THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY" in allcaps.


Tyche: Only a simpleton living in the singularity of NOW, could fail to grasp why "welfare" wouldn't be mentioned.

KA: Um, actually, it WAS dealt with in the Bible.

And I thought you were arguing...
KA: it [the Bible] doesn't say a flippin thing about welfare

I'll leave that argument for the two of you to sort out.

-- snipped arguments for a Jewish theocracy per "establishment" clause --->:->

(Comment added by Tyche on Sun Jan 7 4:02:31 2007)

Oh and...
KA: Also, you're neglecting to remember something, the Federal government, as far as I know does not legislate welfare, but the States do.

Are you mentally retarded?

A couple of things Tyche, first off, you've been trying ramrod Christian this and that down my throat. As to the DoI, yes I'm quite aware I was quoting the Declaration. Any moron would have also been able to figure out I then switched over back to discussing the Constitution.

Now, let me ask you something, Tyche, since the very first post, you have been beligerent, rude, condescending, and throwing various insults and abusive remarks around. Perhaps you could explain to all of us why. Are you incapable of having a debate or discussion without doing the above? Are you perhaps so belligerent because you're wrong and trying to cloud the issue with your insults?

As to Pluto, actually it was a typo, as I was thinking of two different authors and ended up combinging them into one word, namely Plutarch and Plato.

As to your comment that I'm an ignorant slut, I am neither. I am a well-read, intelligent human being, and I am also faithful to my wife, and therefore do not qualify as a slut.

As to the rest, since by your reasoning the United States is a Christian nation, all others who do not follow Christianity are considered either less American, or perhaps not American at all. And by the way, many Christian views do not coincide with Judaism or other religions, so yes, I'd say they have an impact.

As to my "Jewish view" of Jesus, it was so stated in the New Testament that he was Jewish, and spent time in Temple learning the Torah and speaking with the Rabbis and Teachers, so I guess it wasn't my Jewish view, but the Christian views who named him Jewish.

As to my comments regarding the bible and welfare, welfare itself was not spoken of directly, it was alluded to by way of saying that kings should be responsible for the lives of their subjects. It never stated welfare, nor did it mention how the kings should care for their people.

As to Federal or State control over Welfare, I believe it is State ran, as I had to go to a State-run, not a Federal building in order to apply for it. I also believe that each State issues its own Foodstamps and other Welfare programs, not the Federal government.

However, none of this is grounds for acting as you have.

(Comment added by kingarthyr on Sun Jan 7 4:50:47 2007)

By the way, you ignorant person, Judaism itself says ZERO, nothing, nada about Jesus. He is not discussed nor worshipped, etc by Judaism. He was not even a prophet to us. So your saying my Jewish view of Jesus is stupid, since we don't believe in him at all. But, then if you had a clue, you'd know that. Jesus is considered the Christian savior and messenger, and that at some point he'll come again bringing forth the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. Jews do not believe the Messiah (or Messenger bringing forth the Kingdom of Heaven) has shown up yet.

The difference between you and I, Tyche, is fairly simple, I respect others, and their thoughts and opinions, regardless of the religion, or anything else, even if they're wrong. Normally I don't turn into a rude, crass, ignorant pissant who feels the need to insult people, or their religious views, nor put them down because their views do not coincide with my own. You, on the otherhand, do so constantly if someone disagrees with you, is a different religion than you, or feels differently about issues than you do.

* taps foot patiently waiting for another response *

For the purpose of illustration, I'll repost each and every sentence on this thread in sequence exchanged between myself and Kingarthyr that made any reference at all to a specific religion.

---

Tyche:

God, who endows us with life, liberty, property, and the right to pursue happiness, also exhorts individuals to care for the needy, the sick, the homeless, the aged, and those who are otherwise unable to care for themselves.
...
The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right.
...
Such redistribution is contrary to the Biblical command against theft. - from Constitution Party site

---

Kingarthyr:
Christian mortal ethics DO NOT have a place in US Govt policy, federal law, etc. Did you somehow
neglect to recall that? Last I checked, the Pope, Queen of England, and other Church leaders (since the Queen is technically the head of the Anglican church), nor are the bishops, cardinals, priests, etc of the Christian or Catholic faiths in charge of the government. If they were, Jesus would be in all the classes, I wouldn't have been allowed in public school since I'm not a Christian, etc.
...
The one you quoted in your post, sounds like a typical right-wing Christian moralist who thinks the Church should create or run the governmental policies.
...
Are you advocating that the Christian church take over the government? If you are, I'm pretty sure every non-Christian in the United States will have major issue with that, as well as the more moderate Christians who actually believe that everyone in the US doesn't have to believe in the same deities or religious practices, but should all obey the same laws.
...
Oh, and by the way, Tyche, the people you got the quote from, apparently never read the bible. Because I have and it doesn't say a flippin thing about welfare, or that the nations who have dominion over their citizens shouldn't take care of those citizens.
...
Its also not a very Christian view. I believe Christ said that we should help our neighbors.
...
We're all human beings, and if you care more about money than human life, well, sorry, thats just pathetic, and its also not very Christian either. Rabbi Hillel gave us the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
...
You don't worship any God, unless its money and thats pretty sad.

---

Tyche:
I know posting any Christian references at all is *red meat* for marxists, communists and atheist proselytizers, so your response was not unexpected.
...
While the Biblical omission argument is amusing, it does indeed say a great deal about theft and charity.
...
And as you've claimed to read the Bible, you should understand why I do not engage in any competitive discussion of my charity.

---

Kingarthyr:
Did you ever stop once to think maybe I have issues with Christian belief shoved down my throat and told its the only way because I'm not Christian? Then again, I'm also not an Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Hindi, or a slew of other religions most of which pre-date Christianity and extolled the virtues Christianity does before Christ was conceived. I'm Jewish, guess what, Christianity is an offshoot of MY religion. Jesus was Jewish. He went to the cross being Jewish. It was his disciples, NOT him who created Christianity. Jesus was a nice Jewish boy who followed the Old Testament, went to Temple, studied Torah, etc. So, since it was good enough for Jesus to be Jewish and love ALL huamnity, how come its not good for you, Tyche? Jesus routinely helped all who came to him, whether Jew or Gentile, young or old, poor or rich and treated everyone the same. Not being very true to your Son of God, are you, you hypocritical pompous religious fanatic.
...
The moment he invoked God, it became an issue.
...
That didn't mean just Christians.
...
Christianity has shown many times since its inception in the 1st century AD that it is intolerant of ANY other religion aside from itself, and also those within its own religion who disagree with whichever nitwit is in charge of the churches this week. Examples: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition. In the crusades, Christian Knights and Priests (priests used maces, not swords) attempted to wrest the "Holy Land" from the infidels (Jews and Muslims) and purify and reclaim it for CHRISTIANS. They rode through Jerusalem and SLAUGHTERED as many men, women, children and livestock as they possibly could. WOMEN AND CHILDREN, Tyche, all in the name of Jesus, who if I recall said that ALL men are brothers and that we should raise no hand against each other and shed no blood of our brothers.
...
I also happen to have in my home a copy of the Torah which is over 20 yrs old, and a Christian bible or 2, which I have read cover to cover and studied over the years.
...
Even Jesus provided for his followers regularly. The whole Sermon on the Mount thing, where Jesus provided breads for his followers is no different than the government doing the same.
...
Um, actually, it WAS dealt with in the Bible. In the Old Testament actually. We are commanded by God to care for the needy, the poor, the starving, not just each individual, but also Kings and Princes, etc. One of the things Saul and David were both commanded to do by Samuel was to provide for everyone in the Kingdom so there was no starvation and that if someone was without shelter, that another should take them in and provide them with shelter.
...

---

Tyche:
Yes, while your particular Jewish view of Jesus is interesting, I simply fail to see any relevance to the argument.
...
So the moment President Lyndon Johnson invoked God in proposing the Welfare system, it became an issue of church and state?!
...
Now if you want to get really offended then go search the congressional record for the word Christ. There are thousands of hits on where our representatives and senators are arguing both for and against legislation using Christian arguments.
...
The Constitution wasn't written with all religions in mind as we'd certainly persecute the hell out of Mayans and Aztecs, or worshippers of Moloch and Baal. It was written by and for a Christian people, which coincidently is not at all incompatible nor injurious to Jews.
...

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

-- snipped arguments for a Jewish theocracy per "establishment" clause--->:->

---

Kingarthyr:
A couple of things Tyche, first off, you've been trying ramrod Christian this and that down my throat.
...
As to my "Jewish view" of Jesus, it was so stated in the New Testament that he was Jewish, and spent time in Temple learning the Torah and speaking with the Rabbis and Teachers, so I guess it wasn't my Jewish view, but the Christian views who named him Jewish.
...
As to my comments regarding the bible and welfare, welfare itself was not spoken of directly, it was alluded to by way of saying that kings should be responsible for the lives of their subjects.
...
By the way, you ignorant person, Judaism itself says ZERO, nothing, nada about Jesus. He is not discussed nor worshipped, etc by Judaism. He was not even a prophet to us. So your saying my Jewish view of Jesus is stupid, since we don't believe in him at all.
...
Jesus is considered the Christian savior and messenger, and that at some point he'll come again bringing forth the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. Jews do not believe the Messiah (or Messenger bringing forth the Kingdom of Heaven) has shown up yet.
...
The difference between you and I, Tyche, is fairly simple, I respect others, and their thoughts and opinions, regardless of the religion, or anything else, even if they're wrong. Normally I don't turn into a rude, crass, ignorant pissant who feels the need to insult people, or their religious views, nor put them down because their views do not coincide with my own. You, on the otherhand, do so constantly if someone disagrees with you, is a different religion than you, or feels differently about issues than you do.

---

See if you can figure out who is engaged in proselytizing and religious argument, or who is criticizing or attacking another religion, and to the numbers of straw men Kingarthyr is creating and responding to. ;-)

* Looks over at Kingarthyr's corner and wonders whats coming *
* pauses *
* Looks back at Tyche who is slowly sipping water *
* Sits back down in his chair and waits for the bell to ring *

(Comment added by cratonia on Sun Jan 7 10:28:29 2007)

Woo! Post #275