Wow! What a thoughtful and insightful response! I'm not used to such things on slashdot. Thanks for the time and mind power you put into it.
Perhaps it is just the environment I have been a part of, but I've met many hardcore, evangelical Christians who are somewhat left of middle politically. I think we all need to remember that just as PETA does not represent everybody that believes that animals have rights, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not speak for me or the believers that I associate with. We are all hardcore in the sense that being a Christian is a very important part of who we are. We are evangelical in the sense that we are eager to share our faith with others who want to hear. On the other hand I NEVER try to change somebody's mind.
I'm confused by the way practicing Christians seem invariably to be conservative in their politics.
There are quite a large number of Catholics, Presbyterians, and Methodists who democrats.
I can't really find a way to reconcile the pull yourself up by the bootstraps brand of Rush Limbaugh conservatism with the teachings of Jesus or the canonical books of the New Testament.
Nor can I. I do expect to people to work hard and I think there is support for that in the New Testament (I Thessalonians 4:11). The early church actually took very seriously the need for earning their own living. Of course, I recognize that there are many people that need a helping hand up, especially people in other countries, but I have very little patience for people who dig themselves deep debt holes or who are just plain lazy.
I am by the way right of center politically, but I claim no allegiance to Rush, Jerry, or Pat. My right leanings are mainly due to fiscal policy thoughts rather than social issues.
the Gospels show that Jesus came most sharply into conflict not with the big partyers (sinners), but with the Orthodox Religious Right of the day, the Pharisees
I couldn't say it better myself. I wonder what Jesus would say to Jerry Falwell. Personally, I would think he would point out the "plank" in Falwell's eye, and probably something about the "rich young ruler".
Also, the First-Century Church, was strongly socialistic. Compare Marx's dictum, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, with Acts 2:44-46 (NIV), All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need
Again, I agree completely. But it is not just the first-century church. There are many churchs today that operate on that principle. Mine included. I would not be a member otherwise. We share our wealth within the church, the community, and the world in ways too many to count. One example: we host a free dinner every Thursday night. No strings. We have a lot of homeless and poor people who attend. Nothing is expected of them.
I've found that intimating that Jesus was socialistic in His politics will probably get you into a nasty row with most church folks; saying that He was a Communist will virtually guarantee it.
I think you could probably call Jesus a socialist in the sense that we are all expected to help our brothers. However, he was not a communist. Communism is basically totalitarian socialism. I'm pretty convinced that Jesus would be opposed to a government have that much control. As to the suggestion that Jesus was one of those things, I think that is more because of the stigma of socialism and communism than the actual ideas behind them.
If you still have an interest in Christianity, I would suggest that you try a different denomination. Perhaps the Methodists.
It's late and I'm too tired to proofread this effectively. I apologize for any typos.
you seem to be confused. george w. bush IS the religious right. the man is a hardcore evangelical christian.
Sorry, but, all hardcore evangelical Christians are not religious right. My mother is in fact a hardcore evangelical Christian, but she is a democrat through and through.
Most members of the religious right that I talk to think GWB is just pandering to them, but they like him a lot more than any democrat...
Re:Bitter Protest against Patents (n copyrights so
on
When Good Patents Go Bad
·
· Score: 2, Funny
No matter how unlikely it seems, I think you have to be very careful saying something is impossible. Especially something that we are only just starting to explore - such as nanotech.
Most managers work for the better of the company and are burdened by workers who "just work there". No sense of loyalty or obligation to the ones who hired them in the first place.
On the flip-side, there are quite a few IT professionals that get products completed inspite of the (non-technical) bosses who are only trying to further their own career. Loyalty works both ways. Why should I be loyal to a company that might lay me off next week and outsource the work I'm doing?
The Baby Boom generation is getting too old. We would have to get very lucky to grow our way out.
Yeah, no doubt, there is projected to be a HUGE qualified worker deficit in the next 5-10 years.
However, the rate of immigration helps to mitigate that problem. Of course, the problem with that is that the level of education of the majority of immigrants is not up to the level of education of non-immigrants. But that can be solved. The country abounds with inexpensive community colleges.
speaking in a tone of discussion, not argumentatively
My issue is with the idea that most pre-modern wars were justified by a need for natural resources. I don't have any good documentation at hand, but I, personally, believe that most wars before the Korean war (including WWI and WWII) were about conquest and people defending against conquerors. I think you could also make a case for Korea and Vietnam being about the same things.
So all those wars in our history books (such as the warlords in Africa, Napolean, Japan invading China) were wars over necessities? I guess all wars before a Bush was president were justified.
Hate to break this to you, but war has a long history of only being about the people in power.
Unfortunately, most agencies lump alcohol related traffic deaths together with traffic dealths related to other drugs. However, here are a couple of links. Please understand that by "bystander", I simply meant somebody other than the intoxicated driver.
Slashdot Mirror
mmm, I love a fruit salad!
Perhaps it is just the environment I have been a part of, but I've met many hardcore, evangelical Christians who are somewhat left of middle politically. I think we all need to remember that just as PETA does not represent everybody that believes that animals have rights, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not speak for me or the believers that I associate with. We are all hardcore in the sense that being a Christian is a very important part of who we are. We are evangelical in the sense that we are eager to share our faith with others who want to hear. On the other hand I NEVER try to change somebody's mind.
I'm confused by the way practicing Christians seem invariably to be conservative in their politics.
There are quite a large number of Catholics, Presbyterians, and Methodists who democrats. I can't really find a way to reconcile the pull yourself up by the bootstraps brand of Rush Limbaugh conservatism with the teachings of Jesus or the canonical books of the New Testament.
Nor can I. I do expect to people to work hard and I think there is support for that in the New Testament (I Thessalonians 4:11). The early church actually took very seriously the need for earning their own living. Of course, I recognize that there are many people that need a helping hand up, especially people in other countries, but I have very little patience for people who dig themselves deep debt holes or who are just plain lazy. I am by the way right of center politically, but I claim no allegiance to Rush, Jerry, or Pat. My right leanings are mainly due to fiscal policy thoughts rather than social issues.
the Gospels show that Jesus came most sharply into conflict not with the big partyers (sinners), but with the Orthodox Religious Right of the day, the Pharisees
I couldn't say it better myself. I wonder what Jesus would say to Jerry Falwell. Personally, I would think he would point out the "plank" in Falwell's eye, and probably something about the "rich young ruler".
Also, the First-Century Church, was strongly socialistic. Compare Marx's dictum, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, with Acts 2:44-46 (NIV), All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need
Again, I agree completely. But it is not just the first-century church. There are many churchs today that operate on that principle. Mine included. I would not be a member otherwise. We share our wealth within the church, the community, and the world in ways too many to count. One example: we host a free dinner every Thursday night. No strings. We have a lot of homeless and poor people who attend. Nothing is expected of them.
I've found that intimating that Jesus was socialistic in His politics will probably get you into a nasty row with most church folks; saying that He was a Communist will virtually guarantee it.
I think you could probably call Jesus a socialist in the sense that we are all expected to help our brothers. However, he was not a communist. Communism is basically totalitarian socialism. I'm pretty convinced that Jesus would be opposed to a government have that much control. As to the suggestion that Jesus was one of those things, I think that is more because of the stigma of socialism and communism than the actual ideas behind them.
If you still have an interest in Christianity, I would suggest that you try a different denomination. Perhaps the Methodists.
It's late and I'm too tired to proofread this effectively. I apologize for any typos.
Sorry, but, all hardcore evangelical Christians are not religious right. My mother is in fact a hardcore evangelical Christian, but she is a democrat through and through.
Most members of the religious right that I talk to think GWB is just pandering to them, but they like him a lot more than any democrat...
And here I thought the 60s were dead.
Please check out snapstream. I built my own using snapstream for the video functions and love it.
If I wanted lame insults, I would have told my friends about sleeping with your mother.
Q: What do you call 450 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
No matter how unlikely it seems, I think you have to be very careful saying something is impossible. Especially something that we are only just starting to explore - such as nanotech.
Plus, they are not without other faults. By taking privacy to the opposite extreme, they protect known criminals and terrorists.
Sorry, the US government has never operated in a completely open fashion. See this secrecy resolution adopted by the First Continental Congress.
Please name 1 government, in all of history, that has operated in the open.
I didn't realize that Bush was in Congress.
As a white man, I'm offended by the obvious racial slur, "cracker". I prefer the term "European-American".
heh, heh, get it?
See, its a sexual reference.
You know, geeks, not known for having a lot of sex.
Cable - sort of like ...
Aww, shit, never mind.
Err, I'm sorry, I thought that was your earphone plug.
On the flip-side, there are quite a few IT professionals that get products completed inspite of the (non-technical) bosses who are only trying to further their own career. Loyalty works both ways. Why should I be loyal to a company that might lay me off next week and outsource the work I'm doing?
Do you have an example of the poor being taxed by the federal governemt?
One last thing, I feel so bad for you knowing that the average American makes half of the $50,000 that you can hardly live on?
A family of four earning approx. $25k, pays NO income tax, and probably gets money from the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Yeah, no doubt, there is projected to be a HUGE qualified worker deficit in the next 5-10 years. However, the rate of immigration helps to mitigate that problem. Of course, the problem with that is that the level of education of the majority of immigrants is not up to the level of education of non-immigrants. But that can be solved. The country abounds with inexpensive community colleges.
You forgot one option.
D) Growth in GDP leading to growth in tax receipts without a increase in tax rates.
For the most part, the balanced budget of the early 90s was the result of cutting future year budgets and large increases in the tax base.
I guess I didn't make the sarcasm thick enough. My apologies.
It must be owned by Halliburton to get such preferential treament from the Bush administration!
speaking in a tone of discussion, not argumentatively
My issue is with the idea that most pre-modern wars were justified by a need for natural resources. I don't have any good documentation at hand, but I, personally, believe that most wars before the Korean war (including WWI and WWII) were about conquest and people defending against conquerors. I think you could also make a case for Korea and Vietnam being about the same things.
So all those wars in our history books (such as the warlords in Africa, Napolean, Japan invading China) were wars over necessities? I guess all wars before a Bush was president were justified.
Hate to break this to you, but war has a long history of only being about the people in power.
I've been listening to the voice of Microsoft command me for years.
"Although speeding and alcohol remain among the primary causes of fatalities, driving under the influence of drugs appears to be an increasingly widespread road safety problem. In the U.K., for instance, recent research indicated that 18% of those who died in traffic accidents had one or more illicit drugs in their systems."Presumably, the offender was not the only person injured in every case.
"A recent report from P Swann of VicRoads Safety Department stated, "The real risks of being killed when driving whilst impaired by cannabis", shows that cannabis intoxication leads to a relative risk of six of causing a fatal road accident. Cannabis intoxication alone (that is excluding cases where alcohol or other drugs were also present) was found to be responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. These cannabis related deaths are not included in the ABS figures cited above."