You know, I had teachers like you in school and teachers who were... well NOT like you. I got A's in the classes of the teachers NOT like you... the teacher's like you - I played their own game. I constantly watched them for even the most minor deviation from the strictest possible interpretation of the rules that existed for teacher behavior - and would make loud complaints whenever I could. Hell I got one teacher fired after overhearing him swearing on school grounds. He'd have expelled me for the same phrase - so why should the rules only apply to me ?
I finished high school as one of the top students... odd that I was also among the most rebellious, anti-authoritarian and disruptive ones.... oh but only in the classes of teachers who thought they we're little gods. The teachers who respected me, GOT my respect. The teachers who cared about TEACHING rather than creating pacive little obeyant slaves found me an eager student. The ones who tried to brainwash me found I was able to make their lives a living hell. If you were an asshole teacher, I was an asshole student -and I was a better at it than they were.
Then a year later I was in university - an environment hardly known for the disciplined and obedient nature of it's attendants where NO such rules existed. Lecturers pretty much DID let you do whatever you wanted, didn't keep attendance checks or punish you for late homework... oh and actively ENCOURAGED the very things my bad teachers punished me for - like questioning authority, questioning their ideas, position and their textbooks - and instead they focussed on teaching me to do it WELL. To be GOOD at questioning authority - to question ideas with solidly thought out rational arguments.
Literally what every bad teacher in school tried to create in my brain was the exact OPPPOSITE of what makes people successful in university.
I never thought I would say something in defense of the South African appartheid-era school system I went through but damn, it was better than that. Not just better than the absolute horror in the article but better than what you're describing.
There was recourse, if you dissagreed with a teacher's view you could go talk to the principle - state your case, and if the principle felt you were right he'd reverse the punishment, if you didn't get fairness there your parents could make the case on your behalf - and in general (at least if you had a halfway decent principle) that would get the matter sorted out.
This was from basic stuff like "the test question was ambiguous and I believe my answer should be considered correct as there is nothing in the question to exclude my reading of what was asked" (and I was a bit pedantic, I once made a complaint like that over the difference between 79% and 80% in a simple class-quiz) to "I feel I am being punished unfairly". In the event of fights both children would be given a chance to state their case, and self-defense got a much lesser punishment. In the very last fight I ever got in - I got no punishment at all since I didn't participate at all. I had been doing martial arts for a while, the guy who decided to fight me was angry and insisted on a fight I didn't want. I dodged and blocked his attacks without ever hitting him back. For 10 minutes or so he was hitting air and bouncing of my fore-arms before we were pulled apart. For not hitting back and only preventing myself getting injured, I earned guarded praise from the principle and no punishment. Poetic justice... the next day the idiot came to school in a cast, moron had broken his thumb on my forearm since he didn't know how to make a proper fist.
This. I remember growing up my dad told me something (and he told it to a few of my badder teachers too): An authority figure who does not themselves accept the authority over them, loses their authority.
When teachers break the rules made for teachers, they lose the right to be respected in the rules they make for students. When they themselves obey those appointed to determine the parameters within which they have to work, and respect the laws and rights of their students, their enforcement of rules for those students deserve similar respect.
And that let me learn good values from good teachers and not allow myself to be screwed up by bad values from bad teachers. One of the best pieces of advice my dad ever gave me growing up, and one I intend to pass on to my own children.
You cannot claim to be an agent of discipline if, in the name of said discipline, you do not subject yourself to the discipline that is instituted over you. If you break the law in punishments (as some teachers did), or make rules that infringe your students basic rights (such as rules that prevent their freedom of expression) in the name of discipline then you lose the right to enforce that discipline because you, yourself are indisciplined.
I would dissagree with "Culture clashes from a melting pot of immigration" some of the most peaceful countries are MORE ethnicaly diverse than the USA. The difference is that their majority cultures are highly tolerant ones that have embraced and welcomed the minority cultures and their ways of life and mingled with them. When cultures remain seperated, in the same geographic region, they develop animosity - when they intermingle and mix you get peaceful and tolerant societies. The problem isn't that you allowed immigration, it's that you didn't subsequently treat your new neighbours very neigbourly.
Let me explain in simple terms. I believe that human rights must be protected. I believe charity for the poor is a human right. I don't believe in Biblical morality. But since Biblical morality also establishes the same right I believe in I don't see why the religious right opposes the protection of that right. They claim to do so since their morals should not be legally mandated ( I dissagree since I see it as a human right but that's beside the point) so I indicate that if they say that they cannot restrict other people from harmless behavior on the basis of morality either.
And you don't think dismantling the safety nets that keep the poor from starving in order to dictate who somebody can marry is evil? I do and I think the Bible even agrees. It certainly seems to promote the idea of positive rights.
The Republican core belief is that government should not spend any money on the physical welfare of their citizens so they can have more to spend on dictating the most private and personal aspects of people's lives. Coupled with a classic romantic notion of a lost golden age. Thus they strive against progress and try to undo it.
>Were that the case, the risen Christ might have made the case for sunday to be a day off; he did not, and for centuries Christians met early in the morning prior to the work day. That makes a rather poor case for your argument.
Christians certainly did - many of them considered working on a Sunday sinful, and forcing them to was seen as religious oppression - which they DID fight against. They chose to do so through legal means only - in accordance with Paul's injunction which they still remembered.
>However, it utterly fails to consider whether such laws would be efficacious or whether they would make the problem worse (or else introduce worse evils), which I think is relevant if you view the role of government as "restraining evil".
I don't see that as government's role at all. Government's role is protecting the rights of it's citizens - nothing more and nothing less. Those rights include a right to live, to clean water and air and indeed to at least a basic meal every day. I pointed out that Christianity has considered the last bit a right at least as far back as Joshua.
>The other point Im trying very hard to communicate here is that things arent black and white. Example: prostitution-- should it be outlawed?
No. What somebody chooses to do with their body is NO business of the governments, including if they choose to sell it. That's the principle, on a secular and humanist level - it's been shown that legalized prostitution solves the vast majority of other problems related to the trade - such as STD's and slavery.
>If it wasnt established as a government mandate for non-Jews in the Bible, where on earth do you get the idea that God wanted it to be a government mandate for non-jews?
I didn't. My point is that the religious right tries to enforce SOME of their morality on us and that the morality they choose to enforce is oppressive to minorities and the poor many times. The same people on the same platform then campaign for small government and automatically goes to cutting spending on things that are GOOD things to spend on like feeding the poor, but never suggests cutting spending on bad things - like those guys in the uniforms whose job it is to kill people because your government doesn't like their government.
>What??? You can let your opinions affect your votes, but only so long as they do not reflect your values of right and wrong? Im sorry, that makes no sense.
No - you have to let your golden-rule value dictate your vote. When you are deciding your position on an issue your first question should be "how would I like it if I was restricted in this way". Literally ask yourself - if the people whom this law would be against were in CHARGE - would I like it if they FORCED me to act like they do ? If the president was gay - would you like a law PREVENTING you to marry somebody of the opposite sex ? If you won't then you have no right to demand a law preventing other people from marrying somebody of the SAME sex either. That's doing unto other's as you'd have them do unto you. You're in charge in your country, the compassion you do or do not show to the minority in your country whose faith is different is the measure by which other non-Christian governments will justify their treatment of your fellow believers in countries where THEY are the minority. Their blood is on your hands if you are not setting an example of tolerance - built on Jesus's principle of doing unto other's as you'd have them do unto you.
>You are currently advocating that I not be allowed to live by my standards; hypocrisy much?
Not at all. I don't campaign to force you to have a gay relationship. I campaign only to protect a gay man's right to love who he chooses to - and to stop you from restricting that right. Only if we forced you to PARTICIPATE would we be preventing you from living by your standards. Nobody is doing that, we're not even campaigning to stop you from being a bigot about it on the pulpit - but we do believe you should k
>Please explain by what authority or on what basis you expect me to defend the actions of others? If they are characterized by inconsistency with Christ's teachings I have no defense to offer for them
I don't expect anything from you - you volunteered. The discussion right from the GP's posting was about the religious right - what they as a political movement stand for, what they consistently campaign for (and against) and the impact they have on other people - you came in and denied our allegations against the religious right. You chose to speak up in their defense and on their behalf. When I pointed out how bad the chargesheet against them really is - you say you can't defend these actions as they are inconsistent with your beliefs. I can only gather that prior to this discussion you hadn't realized the religious right (as a political movement) was inconsistent with your believes in what they campaign for ? If you changed your mind, then something very good came out of this discussion surely ?
If America's moderate, tolerant Christians don't start speaking up against the fundamentalists who have hijacked your voice in the national political discussion you risk letting them create a "christian nation" where even fellow Christians won't feel welcome. Especially those who are moderate and thinks their religion is one of love and tolerance.... interesting I live in a city with a 45% Islamic population, you know that they tell me the central tenet of their religion is "love all people" ? Seems to be almost a universal theme in religions, if the religions actually lived up to that (or at least supported those speakers who expressed that) then the rest of us could happily ignore them - since nothing they campaigned for would actually be harmful to the rest of the population. Having said that - the position you personally espoused in some ways did strongly correlate with what I perceive to be political positions out of sync with the message of your religion. You spoke against social safety nets for the poor, but did not speak out against excessive military spending. I'll be very frank - if the US government gave their entire "defense" budget to the Salvation Army instead, I'd be cheering them on - even thought the S-A is a religious organisation who hands out charity with a plate-ful of chastisement, at least I know that the money would be spent on saving lives not taking them. Giving it to a secular charity would be best, but I can't pretend that the S-A wouldn't be an improvement.
>And ONCE AGAIN, those were NOT enforced by some kind of Tithe- or Widow- police. And REGARDLESS we do NOT have a theocracy these days, nor does it make sense to do so since our national identity is NOT as a chosen people of God.
If anything that makes it MORE imperative. These were orders given by your god, which makes perfect economic sense then and now. Demanding that your government structures society to see these as rights is no less sensible than demanding your government give you holy days as hollydays or restrict access to material you find objectionable - both actions the religious right frequently entertains. That they came before the institution of a civil government makes them MORE important today, not less. You keep saying that these rules of moral economic behavior and loving your neighbour doesn't apply because we have governments now - I say they apply just as much and that government or no government god's laws must remain the same. Did your own Jesus not tell you to give the king his due ? Does Paul not say that as long as the government doesn't prevent you from serving god you must obey it in every way ? There are many good, secular, arguments in favor of small government. There are NO good religious arguments in favor of doing this at the EXPENSE of charitable care of the poor. You want to cut spending and shrink the government ? Ditch the military and the FBI and the CIA. Cutting social security CANNOT be called an action justifiable under Christian morality.
>But it does NOT mean mandating a tithe for nonbelievers; if it wasnt enforced in the theocracy, by what basis do you assume it should be enforced in today's secular societies?
And once more I call you on inconsistency. If you cannot mandate a tithe for non-believers then you cannot mandate ANYTHING for non-believers at all. So the religious right will stop citing religion in all political matters from now on ? Great, glad that's settled.
>That quite depends on what you mean by "God influencing politics"; I have no doubt that an athiest's a-theism influences the way he votes, so why shouldnt a theist's ethical views influence HIS vote? That seems rather hypocritical, not to mention non-sensical-- to expect someone to exempt what they think "right" and "wrong" and "the point of life" are from their political choices.
But you're contradicting your own statements. I think it's fine to let your opinions (including those related to faith) indfluence your vote. In fact I think it would be impossible not to, but it is NOT fine to let your faith be a reason to vote for morality to become legislature. Morality should always and EXCLUSIVELY be personal. I probably believe in small government more than you because I don't think teh government should have the right to enforce ANYBODIES moral views as laws. It's actions should stop at protecting people's rights, including the right to eat. Give me social security, do NOT give me laws about personal choices and sexuality as these things have NOTHING to do with the government. You are welcome to believe certain things about that, I don't think you have the right to actively campaign to prevent me (who holds different believes) from living according to those different believes by law, or have me denied certain basic rights on the basis of things you don't agree with but which are demonstrably not harmful to you. That's the problem with the religious right- they campaign for laws which enforce their moral views on the PERSONAL lives of others,then campaign at the same time against things that protect the lives of people less fortunate than them. That is by NO means in line with Christian teaching and it's why I generally get along very well with individual people who happen to be Christian, but can't get along at all with Christians plural.
>Life isnt that simple, see above. You are taking a childish, simplistic view of things. One thing can be bad, but its "remedy" can be worse.
No, I'm just expecting your basic thinking patterns to be non-hypocr
>You're putting viewpoints into his mouth he's never spoke and blaming him for wars he never started. Setting up arguments and contradictions of your own making and then knocking them down.
That was a PLURAL "you" not a singular you. I critisized the religious right as being inconsistent with their own religious views in the issues they campaign for. He defended the positions they take on highly spurious grounds, and I knocked those grounds down. The discussion was NEVER about HIS particular views but about the positions of the religious right and what they, as a group, campaign for. The small minority of Christians who do not oppose gay marriage for example cannot by any means be said to be representative of the religious right as a movement - because, as a movement, they have been highly supportive of it and have voted for politicians on the basis of those politicians supporting this.
The core point the guy made is that the morals I said they should pursue cannot be campaigned for as one cannot make the morals of just one religion the law that all must live by - and I pointed out that in fact, on other morals, that exact same religion IS actively campaigning to do just that.
Another little gem for you: the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
Something particularly noteworthy here is that Lazarus is the ONLY character in any of Jesus's parables to EVER be named, even the other characters in that SAME parable - the rich man and his brothers are nameless. Jesus deems Lazarus as a character archetype of a poor beggar to be so important he gives him alone a name, he gives the nameless beggar a name - and removes it from the rich and famous. I think the message is clear: for God it's the poor beggar who gets the sympathy, who matters. The rich man is nobody to him - and indeed, Lazarus the lazy beggar who relied on charity is the one who gets to go to heaven. Isn't that DIRECTLY in contradiction to the economic policies you push ? The religious right who want to dismantle the welfare state and it's safety nets, who want to do all in their power to never have to contribute to a sick man's medical bills or a hungry child's plate of food (especially if that hungry child is black and doesn't live in the subburbs where they live)... you've all BECOME the rich man. Even the lower middle class ones among you have wealth beyond compare in the eyes of the truly poor in this world... and you fight for your politicans to gut their social security and their foodstamps and take away what little they have, to gut their public schools and remove even the meager education they have now which is the only chance they have to possibly get their children a better life than they got. But if you don't believe it when you see it now, and read it in your own damn Bible you wouldn't believe it if an angel came and told you to your face. In the words of your own bible, when the Judgement comes - all of you will be standing on his left hand staring up in disbelieve and you'll say "When did we see you hungry and not feed you ? When did we see you thirsty and not give you water ? When did we see you naked and not clothe you ? When did we see you in prison and not visit you ?" and your book tells us he'll reply: "For so much as you did not do it for the very least of my children, you did not do it for me."
>Israel was to be a holy nation in a way that no nation ever was; to try to base our governmental principles on Israel when we do NOT have a king who necessarily believes in and attempts to carry out God's will, doesnt work. We're not OT Israel, and trying to draw a parallel there doesnt work.
That's a cop-out. Israel was by no means saintly or without it's share of greedy people who would abuse the system. More-over these rules clearly PREDATE the institution of the Israel monarchy so Israel's king is beside the point. These rules were established when Israel was a Theocracy and the only civil government was the priesthood. The events in the first book of Solomon make it clear that the priesthood was hardly without corruption - the rules were made nonetheless and NOWHERE in the bible are they revoked. Christians cannot say "we don't need to consider the right to eat because circumstances are different" when they refuse to make the same acknowledgement for other rules such as homosexuality and adultery (interestingly - one of the few direct mentions of homosexuality occurs just one chapter later in the same book! It came from the EXACT same set of rules). That same chapter also prohibits the eating of pork. The eating of pork rule was revoked in the New Testament but you refuse to suggest it applies to the rest of the chapter - yet you yourself ignore a command from that book which was NOT revoked simply because you're too greedy to acknowledge it's value.
>A) Many christians and jews still tithe (though with christians the percent may vary-- not sure about Jews, but I understand that is traditionally 10%).
This is irrelevant as I clearly pointed out that these rules were ON TOP OF the tithe. Not only did you give a share of your income to the temple to take care of the poor (and indeed most believers still do) - you were ALSO expected to give a share of your actual production to others, based on their need: to the widows and orphans the last of the grape harvest, to a hungry man walking over your fields -as much as he could eat.
>B) More importantly, this is not generally not mandated by the government, nor has it ever been, even in the Bible, as far as I am aware (I may be wrong, and would like to see a passage if I am). The tithe has always AFAIK been a matter between the person and God.
Well at the time this was written (and again, it has NOTHING to do with the tithe) the government had no interest in economics. The logical Christian conclusion should be to demand your government today uphold laws with the same economic basis as these Godly commands, not just to farmers but to all producers as the government IS now involved in economics in a way they were not 4000 years ago (and didn't need to be since it was much simpler back then). Coming back to the tithe, interestingly Christians did just THAT in this case. The tithe was instituted BEFORE there were kings, and applied to a world WITHOUT taxes, in countries with welfare states most churches have REDUCED the tithe by an amount corresponding with the rough percentage of tax that supports the wellfare state. So if you already gave 5% to the poor through taxes, they only ask another 5% through the church (notably I know that the Calvinist churches in South Africa did so).
>C) I am not aware of any of the kings ever passing a law that institutes the jubilee year; that has always been something that was held as God's law. If there are people in this country who are not Christian / Jewish, what sense does it make to impose an OT law meant for God's people (specifically as a way of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding nations) on a minority Christian/Jewish (practicing, at least) country that utterly rejects the idea that God should influence politics?
But the Bible-thumpers push to have God influencing politics. They are directly against that rejection. They demand that their morality be the basis of legislation - including when it comes to laws that harm minorities (such as gay-marriage legislation
>I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions.
And those of us who sincerely believe in free speech find that abominable. Here in South Africa about two years ago, an Indian girl was told by the teachers of her (largely Christian) school that she was not allowed to wear multiple sets of earings. She stated that the extra earings had religious signifance to her as a Hindu and after an investigation the school declared that since their wearing is not MANDATORY in Hinduism (meaningful but not required behavior) prohibiting her from wearing them during school hours due to a rule about girls not having any piercings except one-per-ear was perfectly fine. She took them to the constitutional court - and won. The court found that voluntary actions in religions are MORE meaningful than those compelled by the religion and thus a school rule that prevents the excercise of such actions is a GREATER infringement on freedom of religion and not only ordered the school to change the rule, but made it mandatory for ALL public schools to abholish all rules about earrings. It's also worth noting that the South African constitution considers freedom of religion to be a specific part of freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech rule covers religious expression (though religion gets additional extra protection which not all other speech gets).
For context: it's worth noting that a few years before this another case was brought by a young Rastafarian after the school insisted he cut his hair to comply with hairstyle rules - this of course going directly against his religion which forbids males from cutting their hair. At the time - the court ruled that the school was in the wrong and made it illegal for any public schools in South Africa to have hair rules that could interfere with religious expression.
The bible-thumping parents of South Africa and their schools did what they always do - in the name of discipline they acted without discipline. In the name of authority they did not adhere to the authority over themselves. They didn't abholish rules on hairstyles. They merely made an exception allowing the hair rules to be over-looked in the case where a child's religion requires it (with a letter to that effect from their parents - which in itself is a gross violation of freedom as children SHOULD have the right to change religion without their parent's permission, permission that would often be impossible to obtain and if you don't grant them that freedom then freedom of religion effectively stops existing altogether.) Parents can, and should have the right to, teach their religion to their children - but if those children later choose a different path they should not require permission (for starters all you biblethumpers: do you want to live in a world where if you preach the gospel to a muslim classmate he would need his orthodox dad's permission to before he could consider believing you ?)
It was - basically - a dodge and the later hearing about earrings affirmed the position of the constitutional court here: that while there may be some restriction on constitutional freedoms in a school setting these restrictions MUST be kept to the bare minimum needed and if they cannot be adequately justified they cannot exist. That children have a right to believe, dress and decorate themselves as they choose to and that the school does NOT have the right to enforce a tyranny of the majority (even if it's just the majority of parents and wealthy citizens in the neighbourhood) on these matters.
School (and those parents and wealthy citizens) continue to attempt to find ways around this out of a leftover belief that the old appartheid brainwashing system was somehow noble and that it is bad for children to be allowed to have opinions and express them - longing for a time when the very PURPOSE of schools was deemed to be to ensure all who passed through them would
FTFA - no it does not, the way it's written it makes it illegal for teachers whose children are students in the same schools where they work to be facebook friends with their own children.
>>Let drones maintain [my projects] and deal with any architectural flaws and burn out doing it, that's why they get half my pay.
>You know, if you switched to running companies into the ground, you could probably make 10 times your current pay....I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
>Average tenure for CEOs is something like 7 years, so CEOs jumping ship after 2-3 years can't be all that common
Your own statement disproves itself. If the average is 7 that means about 50$ of them last less than that, and basic statistics declare there will be a normal distribution with the majority of them about halfway towards the 7 year point (e.g. 2 to 4 years) just like the 50% who last longer will be anywhere from 10 to 14 years.
I guess nobody ever told you what the word average actually means ? I'd better go call 911 because if your math teacher read that comment she's trying to commit suicide right now.
Actually, it's judges. What the professors are teaching is true -what you are saying is perfectly sensible... and false. Thanks to a standing court decision decades ago which determined that a CEO must AT ALL TIMES put shareholder value ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. These include ethical ones, environmental ones, and indeed long term profitability and growth. Unfortunately for sensibility - the law actually DEMANDS that CEO's act stupidly.
>I suppose you're suggesting that the US political dialogue is far more socially conservative now than it was in the early 20th century, which of course is complete nonsense. The US is more liberal now than then.
And far LESS liberal than it was in the LATE 20th century.
>Finally, the parable of the moneychangers is utterly irrelevant. It was NOT a parable, it was an EVENT. Parables are stories Jesus told to explain things by analogy. Things he actually DID do no qualify. How are we supposed to take your points on theology seriously if you don't even know THAT ?
Worse you have NO idea what the bible actually TEACHES about economics do you ? See my previous post - even in the old Testament, long before the Kings the law of God declared a RIGHT TO EAT for ALL PEOPLE. Beyond the tithes which were meant for charity what the bible says of property law sets a specific measurement of everybody's production aside to care for the needy - and that measurement is "as much as they need". For the hungry God tells the farmer that a man walking across his land can eat as much as he wants to. It only becomes theft if he carries food off in a bag, or in his hands, but if he carries it in his stomach that's his god-given right. For the widows and orphans God sets aside the entire late-harvest from the grape-farmers, forbidding them from harvesting it - it had to be left on the vine for the needy to pluck and feed themselves.
I think only an absolutely idiot would think that these items literally apply only to farmers, they must be adapted to all professions if they have any meaning at all surely ? Well - the best adaptation I know about is wellfare systems like social-security and medicaid, something the bible-thumping republicans seem to hate. The biblical law also makes it clear that the poor and needy have the right to enter your land in order to feed themselves, and you have NOT got the right to stop them from doing so - how does this fit in with the republican obsession with fences and property rights ?
Those are not the laws of a king, they come from Numbers and Leviticans - making them the direct commands of your God. Commands you are completely ignorant about - and your policies completely in opposition to.
You wonder why people don't take the republican bible-thumpers seriously ? It's because their actions are in direct contradiction to the tenets of their own faith.
>Seems reasonable enough. Who doesn't remember the touching scene in the Gospel of Mises(10:12-26) where Jesus selflessly defends the moneychangers in the temple from excessive capital gains taxes? Or the section shortly thereafter when he resists the blandishments of Judas, the liberal, and upholds intellectual property rights and avoids creating an underclass dependent on handouts by refusing the pirate the loaves and fishes?
Not to mention when he defended the wealthy by saying that he'll be talking to his Dad about either making the needle bigger or the camel smaller...
>All jest aside, the only way a 'bible-thumper' could endorse contemporary Republican(or, for that matter, contemporary Democratic) policy is by making sure not to read past the old testament, and, even there, some amount of studious ignoring will be required...
More than you think, Numbers and Leviticans both include long sets of rules that can only be called economic policy. Among the gems there you'll find "You may not sell or pluck the late-harvest grapes on the vineyard, those are to be left for the widows and orphans" (presumably to help themselves, and my favorite, the one theologians refer to as the "right to eat" rule which stated that when a man walked across a farmland (and back then there was no such concept as trespass - in a way even this survives in many countries, Britain for example recognizes the "right to wander") he is allowed to leave with "all the food he can carry in his stomache". He cannot fill a bag, he cannot take any of the farm's produce for his own gain, but he can eat as much as he wants to, and feed his hunger before moving on and whatever he can carry in his stomache is his by the law of God.
That was the bible's approach to economics. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the economic approaches of even the most bible-thumping republicans.
That motto is wrong as it implies they'll fix something if it is broke. The only "broke" they recognize is "has changed" however so it doesn't work. A much more accurate version of the conservative motto would be: "Ten million dead guys can't have been wrong."
Slashdot Mirror
>Wow...normal people use US Dollars, so logically it means the people in the world that don't use US Dollars are not normal?
I guess that's true for some of us. I've never thought of myself as normal. Normal is for people who lack the courage to be exceptional.
Seriousness aside though - did you honestly expect the GP to be aware that the USA doesn't span over the entire surface of the planet ?
You know, I had teachers like you in school and teachers who were ... well NOT like you. I got A's in the classes of the teachers NOT like you... the teacher's like you - I played their own game. I constantly watched them for even the most minor deviation from the strictest possible interpretation of the rules that existed for teacher behavior - and would make loud complaints whenever I could.
Hell I got one teacher fired after overhearing him swearing on school grounds. He'd have expelled me for the same phrase - so why should the rules only apply to me ?
I finished high school as one of the top students... odd that I was also among the most rebellious, anti-authoritarian and disruptive ones.... oh but only in the classes of teachers who thought they we're little gods. The teachers who respected me, GOT my respect. The teachers who cared about TEACHING rather than creating pacive little obeyant slaves found me an eager student. The ones who tried to brainwash me found I was able to make their lives a living hell. If you were an asshole teacher, I was an asshole student -and I was a better at it than they were.
Then a year later I was in university - an environment hardly known for the disciplined and obedient nature of it's attendants where NO such rules existed. Lecturers pretty much DID let you do whatever you wanted, didn't keep attendance checks or punish you for late homework... oh and actively ENCOURAGED the very things my bad teachers punished me for - like questioning authority, questioning their ideas, position and their textbooks - and instead they focussed on teaching me to do it WELL. To be GOOD at questioning authority - to question ideas with solidly thought out rational arguments.
Literally what every bad teacher in school tried to create in my brain was the exact OPPPOSITE of what makes people successful in university.
I never thought I would say something in defense of the South African appartheid-era school system I went through but damn, it was better than that. Not just better than the absolute horror in the article but better than what you're describing.
There was recourse, if you dissagreed with a teacher's view you could go talk to the principle - state your case, and if the principle felt you were right he'd reverse the punishment, if you didn't get fairness there your parents could make the case on your behalf - and in general (at least if you had a halfway decent principle) that would get the matter sorted out.
This was from basic stuff like "the test question was ambiguous and I believe my answer should be considered correct as there is nothing in the question to exclude my reading of what was asked" (and I was a bit pedantic, I once made a complaint like that over the difference between 79% and 80% in a simple class-quiz) to "I feel I am being punished unfairly". ... the next day the idiot came to school in a cast, moron had broken his thumb on my forearm since he didn't know how to make a proper fist.
In the event of fights both children would be given a chance to state their case, and self-defense got a much lesser punishment. In the very last fight I ever got in - I got no punishment at all since I didn't participate at all. I had been doing martial arts for a while, the guy who decided to fight me was angry and insisted on a fight I didn't want. I dodged and blocked his attacks without ever hitting him back. For 10 minutes or so he was hitting air and bouncing of my fore-arms before we were pulled apart.
For not hitting back and only preventing myself getting injured, I earned guarded praise from the principle and no punishment. Poetic justice
This.
I remember growing up my dad told me something (and he told it to a few of my badder teachers too): An authority figure who does not themselves accept the authority over them, loses their authority.
When teachers break the rules made for teachers, they lose the right to be respected in the rules they make for students. When they themselves obey those appointed to determine the parameters within which they have to work, and respect the laws and rights of their students, their enforcement of rules for those students deserve similar respect.
And that let me learn good values from good teachers and not allow myself to be screwed up by bad values from bad teachers. One of the best pieces of advice my dad ever gave me growing up, and one I intend to pass on to my own children.
You cannot claim to be an agent of discipline if, in the name of said discipline, you do not subject yourself to the discipline that is instituted over you. If you break the law in punishments (as some teachers did), or make rules that infringe your students basic rights (such as rules that prevent their freedom of expression) in the name of discipline then you lose the right to enforce that discipline because you, yourself are indisciplined.
I would dissagree with "Culture clashes from a melting pot of immigration" some of the most peaceful countries are MORE ethnicaly diverse than the USA.
The difference is that their majority cultures are highly tolerant ones that have embraced and welcomed the minority cultures and their ways of life and mingled with them.
When cultures remain seperated, in the same geographic region, they develop animosity - when they intermingle and mix you get peaceful and tolerant societies.
The problem isn't that you allowed immigration, it's that you didn't subsequently treat your new neighbours very neigbourly.
Let me explain in simple terms. I believe that human rights must be protected. I believe charity for the poor is a human right. I don't believe in Biblical morality. But since Biblical morality also establishes the same right I believe in I don't see why the religious right opposes the protection of that right. They claim to do so since their morals should not be legally mandated ( I dissagree since I see it as a human right but that's beside the point) so I indicate that if they say that they cannot restrict other people from harmless behavior on the basis of morality either.
I hadn't responded to that number as I thought it would be silly
And you don't think dismantling the safety nets that keep the poor from starving in order to dictate who somebody can marry is evil? I do and I think the Bible even agrees. It certainly seems to promote the idea of positive rights.
The Republican core belief is that government should not spend any money on the physical welfare of their citizens so they can have more to spend on dictating the most private and personal aspects of people's lives. Coupled with a classic romantic notion of a lost golden age. Thus they strive against progress and try to undo it.
>Were that the case, the risen Christ might have made the case for sunday to be a day off; he did not, and for centuries Christians met early in the morning prior to the work day. That makes a rather poor case for your argument.
Christians certainly did - many of them considered working on a Sunday sinful, and forcing them to was seen as religious oppression - which they DID fight against. They chose to do so through legal means only - in accordance with Paul's injunction which they still remembered.
>However, it utterly fails to consider whether such laws would be efficacious or whether they would make the problem worse (or else introduce worse evils), which I think is relevant if you view the role of government as "restraining evil".
I don't see that as government's role at all. Government's role is protecting the rights of it's citizens - nothing more and nothing less. Those rights include a right to live, to clean water and air and indeed to at least a basic meal every day. I pointed out that Christianity has considered the last bit a right at least as far back as Joshua.
>The other point Im trying very hard to communicate here is that things arent black and white. Example: prostitution-- should it be outlawed?
No. What somebody chooses to do with their body is NO business of the governments, including if they choose to sell it. That's the principle, on a secular and humanist level - it's been shown that legalized prostitution solves the vast majority of other problems related to the trade - such as STD's and slavery.
>If it wasnt established as a government mandate for non-Jews in the Bible, where on earth do you get the idea that God wanted it to be a government mandate for non-jews?
I didn't. My point is that the religious right tries to enforce SOME of their morality on us and that the morality they choose to enforce is oppressive to minorities and the poor many times. The same people on the same platform then campaign for small government and automatically goes to cutting spending on things that are GOOD things to spend on like feeding the poor, but never suggests cutting spending on bad things - like those guys in the uniforms whose job it is to kill people because your government doesn't like their government.
>What??? You can let your opinions affect your votes, but only so long as they do not reflect your values of right and wrong? Im sorry, that makes no sense.
No - you have to let your golden-rule value dictate your vote. When you are deciding your position on an issue your first question should be "how would I like it if I was restricted in this way". Literally ask yourself - if the people whom this law would be against were in CHARGE - would I like it if they FORCED me to act like they do ?
If the president was gay - would you like a law PREVENTING you to marry somebody of the opposite sex ?
If you won't then you have no right to demand a law preventing other people from marrying somebody of the SAME sex either.
That's doing unto other's as you'd have them do unto you. You're in charge in your country, the compassion you do or do not show to the minority in your country whose faith is different is the measure by which other non-Christian governments will justify their treatment of your fellow believers in countries where THEY are the minority.
Their blood is on your hands if you are not setting an example of tolerance - built on Jesus's principle of doing unto other's as you'd have them do unto you.
>You are currently advocating that I not be allowed to live by my standards; hypocrisy much?
Not at all. I don't campaign to force you to have a gay relationship. I campaign only to protect a gay man's right to love who he chooses to - and to stop you from restricting that right.
Only if we forced you to PARTICIPATE would we be preventing you from living by your standards. Nobody is doing that, we're not even campaigning to stop you from being a bigot about it on the pulpit - but we do believe you should k
>Please explain by what authority or on what basis you expect me to defend the actions of others? If they are characterized by inconsistency with Christ's teachings I have no defense to offer for them
I don't expect anything from you - you volunteered. The discussion right from the GP's posting was about the religious right - what they as a political movement stand for, what they consistently campaign for (and against) and the impact they have on other people - you came in and denied our allegations against the religious right. You chose to speak up in their defense and on their behalf. When I pointed out how bad the chargesheet against them really is - you say you can't defend these actions as they are inconsistent with your beliefs.
I can only gather that prior to this discussion you hadn't realized the religious right (as a political movement) was inconsistent with your believes in what they campaign for ? If you changed your mind, then something very good came out of this discussion surely ?
If America's moderate, tolerant Christians don't start speaking up against the fundamentalists who have hijacked your voice in the national political discussion you risk letting them create a "christian nation" where even fellow Christians won't feel welcome. Especially those who are moderate and thinks their religion is one of love and tolerance.... interesting I live in a city with a 45% Islamic population, you know that they tell me the central tenet of their religion is "love all people" ?
Seems to be almost a universal theme in religions, if the religions actually lived up to that (or at least supported those speakers who expressed that) then the rest of us could happily ignore them - since nothing they campaigned for would actually be harmful to the rest of the population.
Having said that - the position you personally espoused in some ways did strongly correlate with what I perceive to be political positions out of sync with the message of your religion. You spoke against social safety nets for the poor, but did not speak out against excessive military spending.
I'll be very frank - if the US government gave their entire "defense" budget to the Salvation Army instead, I'd be cheering them on - even thought the S-A is a religious organisation who hands out charity with a plate-ful of chastisement, at least I know that the money would be spent on saving lives not taking them.
Giving it to a secular charity would be best, but I can't pretend that the S-A wouldn't be an improvement.
>And ONCE AGAIN, those were NOT enforced by some kind of Tithe- or Widow- police. And REGARDLESS we do NOT have a theocracy these days, nor does it make sense to do so since our national identity is NOT as a chosen people of God.
If anything that makes it MORE imperative. These were orders given by your god, which makes perfect economic sense then and now. Demanding that your government structures society to see these as rights is no less sensible than demanding your government give you holy days as hollydays or restrict access to material you find objectionable - both actions the religious right frequently entertains. That they came before the institution of a civil government makes them MORE important today, not less. You keep saying that these rules of moral economic behavior and loving your neighbour doesn't apply because we have governments now - I say they apply just as much and that government or no government god's laws must remain the same. Did your own Jesus not tell you to give the king his due ? Does Paul not say that as long as the government doesn't prevent you from serving god you must obey it in every way ?
There are many good, secular, arguments in favor of small government. There are NO good religious arguments in favor of doing this at the EXPENSE of charitable care of the poor. You want to cut spending and shrink the government ? Ditch the military and the FBI and the CIA. Cutting social security CANNOT be called an action justifiable under Christian morality.
>But it does NOT mean mandating a tithe for nonbelievers; if it wasnt enforced in the theocracy, by what basis do you assume it should be enforced in today's secular societies?
And once more I call you on inconsistency. If you cannot mandate a tithe for non-believers then you cannot mandate ANYTHING for non-believers at all. So the religious right will stop citing religion in all political matters from now on ? Great, glad that's settled.
>That quite depends on what you mean by "God influencing politics"; I have no doubt that an athiest's a-theism influences the way he votes, so why shouldnt a theist's ethical views influence HIS vote? That seems rather hypocritical, not to mention non-sensical-- to expect someone to exempt what they think "right" and "wrong" and "the point of life" are from their political choices.
But you're contradicting your own statements. I think it's fine to let your opinions (including those related to faith) indfluence your vote. In fact I think it would be impossible not to, but it is NOT fine to let your faith be a reason to vote for morality to become legislature. Morality should always and EXCLUSIVELY be personal. I probably believe in small government more than you because I don't think teh government should have the right to enforce ANYBODIES moral views as laws. It's actions should stop at protecting people's rights, including the right to eat. Give me social security, do NOT give me laws about personal choices and sexuality as these things have NOTHING to do with the government.
You are welcome to believe certain things about that, I don't think you have the right to actively campaign to prevent me (who holds different believes) from living according to those different believes by law, or have me denied certain basic rights on the basis of things you don't agree with but which are demonstrably not harmful to you.
That's the problem with the religious right- they campaign for laws which enforce their moral views on the PERSONAL lives of others,then campaign at the same time against things that protect the lives of people less fortunate than them. That is by NO means in line with Christian teaching and it's why I generally get along very well with individual people who happen to be Christian, but can't get along at all with Christians plural.
>Life isnt that simple, see above. You are taking a childish, simplistic view of things. One thing can be bad, but its "remedy" can be worse.
No, I'm just expecting your basic thinking patterns to be non-hypocr
>You're putting viewpoints into his mouth he's never spoke and blaming him for wars he never started. Setting up arguments and contradictions of your own making and then knocking them down.
That was a PLURAL "you" not a singular you. I critisized the religious right as being inconsistent with their own religious views in the issues they campaign for. He defended the positions they take on highly spurious grounds, and I knocked those grounds down. The discussion was NEVER about HIS particular views but about the positions of the religious right and what they, as a group, campaign for. The small minority of Christians who do not oppose gay marriage for example cannot by any means be said to be representative of the religious right as a movement - because, as a movement, they have been highly supportive of it and have voted for politicians on the basis of those politicians supporting this.
The core point the guy made is that the morals I said they should pursue cannot be campaigned for as one cannot make the morals of just one religion the law that all must live by - and I pointed out that in fact, on other morals, that exact same religion IS actively campaigning to do just that.
Another little gem for you: the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
Something particularly noteworthy here is that Lazarus is the ONLY character in any of Jesus's parables to EVER be named, even the other characters in that SAME parable - the rich man and his brothers are nameless. Jesus deems Lazarus as a character archetype of a poor beggar to be so important he gives him alone a name, he gives the nameless beggar a name - and removes it from the rich and famous. I think the message is clear: for God it's the poor beggar who gets the sympathy, who matters. The rich man is nobody to him - and indeed, Lazarus the lazy beggar who relied on charity is the one who gets to go to heaven. Isn't that DIRECTLY in contradiction to the economic policies you push ? The religious right who want to dismantle the welfare state and it's safety nets, who want to do all in their power to never have to contribute to a sick man's medical bills or a hungry child's plate of food (especially if that hungry child is black and doesn't live in the subburbs where they live) ... you've all BECOME the rich man. Even the lower middle class ones among you have wealth beyond compare in the eyes of the truly poor in this world... and you fight for your politicans to gut their social security and their foodstamps and take away what little they have, to gut their public schools and remove even the meager education they have now which is the only chance they have to possibly get their children a better life than they got.
But if you don't believe it when you see it now, and read it in your own damn Bible you wouldn't believe it if an angel came and told you to your face.
In the words of your own bible, when the Judgement comes - all of you will be standing on his left hand staring up in disbelieve and you'll say "When did we see you hungry and not feed you ? When did we see you thirsty and not give you water ? When did we see you naked and not clothe you ? When did we see you in prison and not visit you ?" and your book tells us he'll reply: "For so much as you did not do it for the very least of my children, you did not do it for me."
>Israel was to be a holy nation in a way that no nation ever was; to try to base our governmental principles on Israel when we do NOT have a king who necessarily believes in and attempts to carry out God's will, doesnt work. We're not OT Israel, and trying to draw a parallel there doesnt work.
That's a cop-out. Israel was by no means saintly or without it's share of greedy people who would abuse the system. More-over these rules clearly PREDATE the institution of the Israel monarchy so Israel's king is beside the point. These rules were established when Israel was a Theocracy and the only civil government was the priesthood. The events in the first book of Solomon make it clear that the priesthood was hardly without corruption - the rules were made nonetheless and NOWHERE in the bible are they revoked.
Christians cannot say "we don't need to consider the right to eat because circumstances are different" when they refuse to make the same acknowledgement for other rules such as homosexuality and adultery (interestingly - one of the few direct mentions of homosexuality occurs just one chapter later in the same book! It came from the EXACT same set of rules). That same chapter also prohibits the eating of pork. The eating of pork rule was revoked in the New Testament but you refuse to suggest it applies to the rest of the chapter - yet you yourself ignore a command from that book which was NOT revoked simply because you're too greedy to acknowledge it's value.
>A) Many christians and jews still tithe (though with christians the percent may vary-- not sure about Jews, but I understand that is traditionally 10%).
This is irrelevant as I clearly pointed out that these rules were ON TOP OF the tithe. Not only did you give a share of your income to the temple to take care of the poor (and indeed most believers still do) - you were ALSO expected to give a share of your actual production to others, based on their need: to the widows and orphans the last of the grape harvest, to a hungry man walking over your fields -as much as he could eat.
>B) More importantly, this is not generally not mandated by the government, nor has it ever been, even in the Bible, as far as I am aware (I may be wrong, and would like to see a passage if I am). The tithe has always AFAIK been a matter between the person and God.
Well at the time this was written (and again, it has NOTHING to do with the tithe) the government had no interest in economics. The logical Christian conclusion should be to demand your government today uphold laws with the same economic basis as these Godly commands, not just to farmers but to all producers as the government IS now involved in economics in a way they were not 4000 years ago (and didn't need to be since it was much simpler back then).
Coming back to the tithe, interestingly Christians did just THAT in this case. The tithe was instituted BEFORE there were kings, and applied to a world WITHOUT taxes, in countries with welfare states most churches have REDUCED the tithe by an amount corresponding with the rough percentage of tax that supports the wellfare state. So if you already gave 5% to the poor through taxes, they only ask another 5% through the church (notably I know that the Calvinist churches in South Africa did so).
>C) I am not aware of any of the kings ever passing a law that institutes the jubilee year; that has always been something that was held as God's law. If there are people in this country who are not Christian / Jewish, what sense does it make to impose an OT law meant for God's people (specifically as a way of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding nations) on a minority Christian/Jewish (practicing, at least) country that utterly rejects the idea that God should influence politics?
But the Bible-thumpers push to have God influencing politics. They are directly against that rejection. They demand that their morality be the basis of legislation - including when it comes to laws that harm minorities (such as gay-marriage legislation
>I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions.
And those of us who sincerely believe in free speech find that abominable. Here in South Africa about two years ago, an Indian girl was told by the teachers of her (largely Christian) school that she was not allowed to wear multiple sets of earings.
She stated that the extra earings had religious signifance to her as a Hindu and after an investigation the school declared that since their wearing is not MANDATORY in Hinduism (meaningful but not required behavior) prohibiting her from wearing them during school hours due to a rule about girls not having any piercings except one-per-ear was perfectly fine.
She took them to the constitutional court - and won. The court found that voluntary actions in religions are MORE meaningful than those compelled by the religion and thus a school rule that prevents the excercise of such actions is a GREATER infringement on freedom of religion and not only ordered the school to change the rule, but made it mandatory for ALL public schools to abholish all rules about earrings. It's also worth noting that the South African constitution considers freedom of religion to be a specific part of freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech rule covers religious expression (though religion gets additional extra protection which not all other speech gets).
For context: it's worth noting that a few years before this another case was brought by a young Rastafarian after the school insisted he cut his hair to comply with hairstyle rules - this of course going directly against his religion which forbids males from cutting their hair. At the time - the court ruled that the school was in the wrong and made it illegal for any public schools in South Africa to have hair rules that could interfere with religious expression.
The bible-thumping parents of South Africa and their schools did what they always do - in the name of discipline they acted without discipline. In the name of authority they did not adhere to the authority over themselves. They didn't abholish rules on hairstyles. They merely made an exception allowing the hair rules to be over-looked in the case where a child's religion requires it (with a letter to that effect from their parents - which in itself is a gross violation of freedom as children SHOULD have the right to change religion without their parent's permission, permission that would often be impossible to obtain and if you don't grant them that freedom then freedom of religion effectively stops existing altogether.)
Parents can, and should have the right to, teach their religion to their children - but if those children later choose a different path they should not require permission (for starters all you biblethumpers: do you want to live in a world where if you preach the gospel to a muslim classmate he would need his orthodox dad's permission to before he could consider believing you ?)
It was - basically - a dodge and the later hearing about earrings affirmed the position of the constitutional court here: that while there may be some restriction on constitutional freedoms in a school setting these restrictions MUST be kept to the bare minimum needed and if they cannot be adequately justified they cannot exist. That children have a right to believe, dress and decorate themselves as they choose to and that the school does NOT have the right to enforce a tyranny of the majority (even if it's just the majority of parents and wealthy citizens in the neighbourhood) on these matters.
School (and those parents and wealthy citizens) continue to attempt to find ways around this out of a leftover belief that the old appartheid brainwashing system was somehow noble and that it is bad for children to be allowed to have opinions and express them - longing for a time when the very PURPOSE of schools was deemed to be to ensure all who passed through them would
FTFA - no it does not, the way it's written it makes it illegal for teachers whose children are students in the same schools where they work to be facebook friends with their own children.
>>Let drones maintain [my projects] and deal with any architectural flaws and burn out doing it, that's why they get half my pay.
>You know, if you switched to running companies into the ground, you could probably make 10 times your current pay. ...I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
>Average tenure for CEOs is something like 7 years, so CEOs jumping ship after 2-3 years can't be all that common
Your own statement disproves itself. If the average is 7 that means about 50$ of them last less than that, and basic statistics declare there will be a normal distribution with the majority of them about halfway towards the 7 year point (e.g. 2 to 4 years) just like the 50% who last longer will be anywhere from 10 to 14 years.
I guess nobody ever told you what the word average actually means ?
I'd better go call 911 because if your math teacher read that comment she's trying to commit suicide right now.
THIS. Exactly this is why 2 months after going public Branson bought back every Virgin share and took the company private again.
>Apparently Finance 101 professors are idiots.
Actually, it's judges. What the professors are teaching is true -what you are saying is perfectly sensible... and false.
Thanks to a standing court decision decades ago which determined that a CEO must AT ALL TIMES put shareholder value ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. These include ethical ones, environmental ones, and indeed long term profitability and growth.
Unfortunately for sensibility - the law actually DEMANDS that CEO's act stupidly.
>I suppose you're suggesting that the US political dialogue is far more socially conservative now than it was in the early 20th century, which of course is complete nonsense. The US is more liberal now than then.
And far LESS liberal than it was in the LATE 20th century.
>Finally, the parable of the moneychangers is utterly irrelevant.
It was NOT a parable, it was an EVENT. Parables are stories Jesus told to explain things by analogy. Things he actually DID do no qualify. How are we supposed to take your points on theology seriously if you don't even know THAT ?
Worse you have NO idea what the bible actually TEACHES about economics do you ? See my previous post - even in the old Testament, long before the Kings the law of God declared a RIGHT TO EAT for ALL PEOPLE. Beyond the tithes which were meant for charity what the bible says of property law sets a specific measurement of everybody's production aside to care for the needy - and that measurement is "as much as they need".
For the hungry God tells the farmer that a man walking across his land can eat as much as he wants to. It only becomes theft if he carries food off in a bag, or in his hands, but if he carries it in his stomach that's his god-given right. For the widows and orphans God sets aside the entire late-harvest from the grape-farmers, forbidding them from harvesting it - it had to be left on the vine for the needy to pluck and feed themselves.
I think only an absolutely idiot would think that these items literally apply only to farmers, they must be adapted to all professions if they have any meaning at all surely ? Well - the best adaptation I know about is wellfare systems like social-security and medicaid, something the bible-thumping republicans seem to hate.
The biblical law also makes it clear that the poor and needy have the right to enter your land in order to feed themselves, and you have NOT got the right to stop them from doing so - how does this fit in with the republican obsession with fences and property rights ?
Those are not the laws of a king, they come from Numbers and Leviticans - making them the direct commands of your God. Commands you are completely ignorant about - and your policies completely in opposition to.
You wonder why people don't take the republican bible-thumpers seriously ? It's because their actions are in direct contradiction to the tenets of their own faith.
>Seems reasonable enough. Who doesn't remember the touching scene in the Gospel of Mises(10:12-26) where Jesus selflessly defends the moneychangers in the temple from excessive capital gains taxes? Or the section shortly thereafter when he resists the blandishments of Judas, the liberal, and upholds intellectual property rights and avoids creating an underclass dependent on handouts by refusing the pirate the loaves and fishes?
Not to mention when he defended the wealthy by saying that he'll be talking to his Dad about either making the needle bigger or the camel smaller...
>All jest aside, the only way a 'bible-thumper' could endorse contemporary Republican(or, for that matter, contemporary Democratic) policy is by making sure not to read past the old testament, and, even there, some amount of studious ignoring will be required...
More than you think, Numbers and Leviticans both include long sets of rules that can only be called economic policy. Among the gems there you'll find "You may not sell or pluck the late-harvest grapes on the vineyard, those are to be left for the widows and orphans" (presumably to help themselves, and my favorite, the one theologians refer to as the "right to eat" rule which stated that when a man walked across a farmland (and back then there was no such concept as trespass - in a way even this survives in many countries, Britain for example recognizes the "right to wander") he is allowed to leave with "all the food he can carry in his stomache". He cannot fill a bag, he cannot take any of the farm's produce for his own gain, but he can eat as much as he wants to, and feed his hunger before moving on and whatever he can carry in his stomache is his by the law of God.
That was the bible's approach to economics. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the economic approaches of even the most bible-thumping republicans.
That motto is wrong as it implies they'll fix something if it is broke. The only "broke" they recognize is "has changed" however so it doesn't work. A much more accurate version of the conservative motto would be: "Ten million dead guys can't have been wrong."