Democrats & Liberals Archives

Am I My Brother's Keeper?

I can’t understand why the Republican Party is labeled religious and the Democratic Paty is labeled nonreligious. It makes no sense. Republicans believe, as Cain did, that they need not worry about their brothers, that each person must take care of himself, and that if the “hidden hand” doesn’t provide, too bad. Democrats, however, believe as Abel did, that each of us IS our brothers’ keeper, that we must each take care of others, and that we must soften the “hidden hand” to ease the pain to the unfortunate. Isn’t the Democratic Party the more religious party?

From the Bible, Old Testament Genesis iv. 9:

"And the Lord said unto Cain, where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?"

Ever since then Abel was the good guy and Cain the bad guy.

Cain was terrible. After killing the good Abel, Cain said "Am I my brother's keeper?" Am I responsible for my brother? Do I have to worry about what my brother does? Is it my business to help him if he is in trouble? No way. I have to take care of Number 1. My job is to be a success and I achieve success through self-reliance. If my brother interferes - tries to compete with me - I knock him down. Let my brother take care of himself.

Doesn't this sound like the Republican Party - the party of rugged individualism, the party of greed, the party that believes that "owners" and not "brothers" are the people to be concerned about?

Not only do Republicans not care about the poor and unfortunate, they hate some people merely because they are different. They hate gays and lesbians and want to deprive them of their normal rights as Americans. They hate atheists. They hate everybody who has sex outside marriage. They hate those who have abortions. They hate illegal aliens so much they want to erect a wall to keep them out.

President Bush got a little Abel in him lately and recommended a path towards citizenship. The super-Cains in the Republican Party screamed "Amnesty." Only a guy who believes in Cain's philosophy would consider "amnesty" a dirty word. An Abel would welcome "amnesty."

Democrats are different. Abel, not Cain, is their guiding light. We ARE our brothers' keepers. We must consider the needs of the poor, the sick, the helpless, the minorities, those that are different and those that are unfortunate.

And Republicans are religious and Democrats are not? It's the other way around.

At this point I quote someone I have quoted before and probably will quote again. I quote a person who is considered by leaders of practically every major religion in the world (and many non-religious people) to be one of the most admired religious people. I quote the Dalai Lama:

"For what is religion? As far as I am concerned, any deed done with good motivation is a religious act. On the other hand, a gathering of people in a temple or church who do not have good motivation are not performing a religious act when they pray together."

Yes, lots of Republicans spend time praying for terrible things to happen to people who do not believe in what they believe. These guys are worshippers of Cain. Perhaps there are not that many Democrats praying, but they are devoted to helping their brothers and sisters. They believe that they are their brothers' keepers.

The Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is the religious party.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 22, 2006 3:10 PM
Comments
Comment #150237

According to a Pew poll, 42 percent of Catholics and 49 percent of white Protestants think torture is never or rarely acceptable. 57 percent of the “secular” respondents think torture is never or rarely acceptable. In other words, if you are an American Christian, you are more likely to support torture than if you are an atheist or agnostic.

And that’s just messed up. I don’t know which party is more religious, but I sure know which one is closer to the Christian values I was brought up with. I think a lot of these “so called” Christians are hypocrites who do a real disservice to their religion by not taking it seriously. The Christian right need to stop besmirching Christianity and instead become a gun club or something.

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #150238

Democrats want to do good with republican money.

Posted by: John Jay Fawcett at May 22, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #150247

Paul,

Not only do Republicans not care about the poor and unfortunate, they hate some people merely because they are different.

I love you, Paul. I really do. (That goes for Adrienne too, by the way. I know you’re out there sweetie.)

I have not one ounce of hatred for you in my entire body. I completely disagree with just about everything you say however. What’s more, I enjoy disagreeing with you, and I am so glad that you write on watchblog and that we can disagree here— together.

Now, if we defined the ‘enjoyment of disagreement’ in the same way that the left defines compassion and hatred, I would have to advocate the government taking over this blog.

Anything less would mean that I do not enjoy the discussion on watchblog— in fact, unless I advocate these discussions taking place under government supervision I actually hate these discussions. Because as we all know you can’t care about something unless the government is involved with it.

Just as ‘we all know’ that unless you advocate a government program to take care of the poor and unfortunate— you don’t care at all. In fact you hate the poor and unfortunate if you don’t advocate a welfare state to take care of them (us).

Posted by: esimonson at May 22, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #150248

Democrats want to do good with republican money.

Posted by: John Jay Fawcett at May 22, 2006 03:42 PM

Hah!! The Republicans are good at squeezing money out of other’s hands. They aren’t getting rich doing the ‘work’ themselves! Get the government to make rules which favor no stealing after they’ve stolen all the land and resources. Bush is fond of equating himself with the “Pioneers” of the American West. He sees the rugged, self-reliant, builder of our country. Many Westerners are familiar with the ravages that the pioneers laid upon the land. Where are the buffalo? Many mountains, streams, and plains were decimated in their ‘scorched earth’ tactics of making a living!

Anyway… in a word… YES, the Democrats embody more of the New Testament message of Jesus. Republicans like the Old Testament, ‘wrath of God’ message of the bible. I thought Jesus came to make a New Covenant. Seems not many Christians signed up for that one.

Posted by: LibRick at May 22, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #150251
Democrats want to do good with republican money.

That’s rich. The Northern (more democratic) states subsidize the Southern (red) states with a ton of tax money. No offense, but the fact is the red states completely leech off the blue ones. Now please return to the topic at hand.

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #150252

Stephen,

Does this post pass your moderation test?

Posted by: Rob at May 22, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #150259

Paul
I’m glad you said Republicans and not Conservatives.
Sense the Republicans are just about as liberal as the Democrats. And neither party cares one red cent about anyone one than themselves.
As a Conservative I believe in helping out those that truly need help. But I expect them to be trying to do for themselves. If someone is to lazy to work and not willing to try to help themselves, then let them rot.
Sense you want to quote the Bible to make your point. Here’s one for you to think about.
II Thessalonians 3:10 …..if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 22, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #150262

Democrats want to do good with republican money.

That’s rich. The Northern (more democratic) states subsidize the Southern (red) states with a ton of tax money. No offense, but the fact is the red states completely leech off the blue ones. Now please return to the topic at hand.

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 04:13 PM

Interesting, I live in Georgia. Where’s all that Yankee money that we’re supposedly getting? It sure aint showed up in Georgia yet.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 22, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #150263

Lincoln once said “How can you keep them down on the farm,once they have seen Paree”!O.K. I lied he did’nt say that But what he would have said is “Don’t mistake religious fervor for intelligence” Religious beliefs are personal and subjective. No one party has a heads up on whom God smiles. To me this is a non issue in terms of impacting voters. A good man is a good man is a good man

Posted by: jblym at May 22, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #150286

“each of us IS our brothers’ keeper, that we must each take care of others, and that we must soften the “hidden hand” to ease the pain to the unfortunate. Isn’t the Democratic Party the more religious party?”

The answer is no. Taking the sheriff and making someone give “for good” is not a Godly thing.

Jesus/God didn’t use the Romans to force their will upon the people. I believe it was the Pharasees that did that. That is your Democratic and most of your Republican party.

Posted by: JimmyRay at May 22, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #150296

John Jay Fawcett,

“Democrats want to do good with republican money.”

Whose money? Don’t you mean China’s? Did you forget what year it is? Republicans and fiscal conservative no longer go together. It is actually an oxymoron now.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 22, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #150304

esimonson,

You are broaching a conversation device used by those who wish to remove public funding to provide for the general welfare of this nation and her citizens.

The argument is all compassionate acts and charity should be done via some sort of personal choice to do so.

The reality is that there is not enough money NOW. Even with both government AND private funds, there is still great need. People who wish/hope/do work cannot make ends meet. They cannot invest in their family. We even have the mentally Ill walk the streets. Many kids live food deprived lives. All this is happening right NOW. If you remove the government funding, and are only left with private charity, the situation gets worse.

And you wish to remove government funding?

Posted by: Patrick Howse at May 22, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #150312

Eric:
“I love you, Paul. I really do. (That goes for Adrienne too, by the way. I know you’re out there sweetie.)”

Eeew! This is so creepy.

“I have not one ounce of hatred for you in my entire body.”

Are we actually supposed to buy this? All of your articles for this blog speak louder than the above words, I’m afraid. So please, get real. Folks like Paul and I are far from timid, left-fearing DLC Liberals, and everything you write displays a deep hatred of Liberals. Therefore, among those you’re constantly shredding, you’d definitely hate people like us the most.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 22, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #150315

Christians are very liberal if you use the term correctly. We believe in helping our fellow man. The real term for democrat and moderate republican so called liberals is collectivists. As a christian I have always helped others with my own means. This is the teaching of Jesus. Collectivists define need themselves and then confiscate other people’s money to meet them. We respect ownership and don’t envy what others have. Collectivists, communists, and socialists look at success as something they should have without the hard work and innovation it really takes. Those nasty rich should be putting back into our causes !
A collectivist cain would have said,”Aren’t you my brother’s keeper?” and then blame Adam for his horrible childhood outside the garden.

Posted by: Kruser at May 22, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #150316

Cain was not the bad guy because he asked if he was his brother’s keeper. He was the bad guy because he killed his brother and tried to use that phrase to trick God. We should not use it out of its proper context.

Liberals and lefties just don’t get it. The free market is what makes the poor less poor. If you distributed ALL the wealth in human hands in 1800, everybody would have been abysmally poor. We get richer only with a growing economy and the free market does that better than the alternatives.

BTW - Individuals CAN be generous. Government cannot. Government is just a transfer point. I am afraid many people reach for government generosity as a substitute for their own.

Paul

If you want to quote a Bible verse for your post, Isaiah 42:1-4 fits much better what you are trying to say, BTW. Lay off the Brother’s keeper.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #150320

Jack,

I love the argument that Free Market is what makes the poor less poor. It’s funny because it is absolutely backwards. Free Market makes the rich more rich and thats about it. See the problem with free market (notable free market without any checks and balances) is that you get a drive for making money and the rights of the worker are completely shunned. We first saw what Free Market Economy could do during the Industrial Revolution. It is what lead to children being stuck in factories because they would work for less money.

Corporations don’t give a hoot about the people they employ. What you get with a Free Market Economy is Corporations condensing into large ultra-powerful congolmerations (like we see now) that control the market oligarchically (is that a word?) not the market controlling them.

Sorry Paul, a little off topic :-)

Posted by: Nick at May 22, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #150326
Republicans believe, as Cain did, that they need not worry about their brothers, that each person must take care of himself, and that if the “hidden hand” doesn’t provide, too bad.

I’m not a republican, but even *I* see this as a complete and total ignorant statement.

I think that most people care about their brothers and worry about them.

It’s the notion that to show you care you must be willing to arm the police force to force your other brother to pay for your brother that most of the republicans and libertarians find ahborant. *YOU* feel that because we don’t have federally instituted governmental programs to eliminate poverty that we don’t care.

It’s this mindless idiocy that prevents real help from reaching the people who need it most. Who need human interaction and caring words over money, something that you fail to mention at all in your article, and it is quite telling.

Kruser,

Jesus did not once advocate taking the money of another by force and giving it to the poor. He did plead and beg for those with money to give, FREELY, to the poor.

You can’t see the difference and that is a sad state of affairs.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #150340

Yeah Max, I’m with Ron. Where is all the Yankee money going..not to Tennessee either. Unless you speak of all the retirees coming to Fairfield Glade in Crossville.

Posted by: bigkenzombie at May 22, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #150341

PS there’s a lot of Ables here too among the hard-charging Cains. Like wheat among tares.

Posted by: bigkenzombie at May 22, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #150343

>>The free market is what makes the poor less poor. If you distributed ALL the wealth in human hands in 1800, everybody would have been abysmally poor. We get richer only with a growing economy and the free market does that better than the alternatives.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 06:28 PM

In 1800, 99% of the wealth was situated in the hands of 1% of the people. While redistribution would not have helped, things that did help were laws against child labor, sweatshops, healthier mining operations, labor unions, etc., etc. Without these things, America would have become just another third world country.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 22, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #150344

I think you misunderstood my post. The point is that jesus pointed to individual responsibility. In the good samaratan parable, the priest and Levite were public servants, expected to help those in need. The hated buisnessman was the one who really was a neighbor.
Confiscating someone elses property for your perception of a need is stealing. Those who do it are thieves. Those who recieve confiscated things without earning them are thieves also. That is why crime is high in welfare areas. They percieve that the those around them don’t need their property as much as a certain thief or needy person does. I was raised around this so it isn’t just speculation on my part.
Those who are poor and steal are equally as full of envy and hatred as those who are rich and do so.

Posted by: Kruser at May 22, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #150345

>>Jesus did not once advocate taking the money of another by force and giving it to the poor. He did plead and beg for those with money to give, FREELY, to the poor.

You can’t see the difference and that is a sad state of affairs.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2006 07:10 PM

Jesus was not in charge. The only thing he could do was plead and beg. Thr rich were no more generous in Jesus’ time than now. Jesus is not here, and he does not dwell with Republicans. If he were here and could vote in the next election, do you think he would vote for the uncaring or the caring party?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 22, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #150350

I you judge motives too quickly. I think most people care, they are misguided in the way to deal with things.
Passing laws to stop child labor, yes.
Confiscating wages for pet projects rather than helping those around you, no

Posted by: Kruser at May 22, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #150356

Once again…Paul is reaching. I love the way Paul crafts his arguments. The only hate that is going on here, is Paul’s utter contempt for anything to the right of his communist manifesto.

I am conservative - not necessarily republican.
I am god fearing, but not religious. I certainly don’t care what you believe, as long as it doesnt hurt others.
I am not homophobic - some of my best friends are gay. My business partner is a lesbien, and one of my best friends.
I do not discriminate by color (my ex wife was korean and black - beat that!), or gender, or physical abilities (my dad is a handicapped vietnam vet).

Paul, try painting with a slightly smaller brush. Perspective is a wonderful thing. After all wasnt your democratic senator from West Virginia in the KKK at one point?

My basic philosophy is give a mana fish, and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. What’s wrong with that???

Posted by: b0mbay at May 22, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #150360

where does this guy siegel get his trash? From the di vinci code movie? All you do nothings want is for us builders and shakers to donate more to the wellfare class so we will have less thereby creating a totalitarian all for one one for all society. If you want to care for your brothers that is a noble goal. Just try using your money for a change and stay away from my brothers. I dont hate queers they discust me.As for atheists no hate there either just pity. Bush does not even remotly represent Able. With his plan to hand over the future of the US to the wetbacks, He more closley resembles Bennidict Arnold.

Posted by: jc at May 22, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #150366

Sounds like JC needs an intervention.

Posted by: bigkenzombie at May 22, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #150375

JC,I love the way you mispell and use hateful statements to make your point. It is so refreshing to see that the Archie Bunker mentality is so perfectly represented in a humourous and obviously tongue in cheek way. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: jblym at May 22, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #150376

Eric, I actually agree with what you say here, well almost, and disagree that Democrats or Republicans are either more or less religious or caring of the poor.

What I think is percieved by the left is the disingenous belief by Republicans that somehow it is magical that the disparity between the wealthy and poor is growing.

Its is the knee jerk reaction that Liberals want to expand government to help the poor that seems to blind many.

Given that the Republicans have completely lost the position of being anti-government during their rule of the roost, perhaps it is time to open your eyes and begin to address the problem, rather than blame those heathen, hollywood worshipping Democrats.

What say you, Eric? What is that magical elf causing this to happen, and why do you seem to want to just blame the victim?


Posted by: gergle at May 22, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #150377

Eric, I actually agree with what you say here, well almost, and disagree that Democrats or Republicans are either more or less religious or caring of the poor.

What I think is percieved by the left is the disingenous belief by Republicans that somehow it is magical that the disparity between the wealthy and poor is growing.

Its is the knee jerk reaction that Liberals want to expand government to help the poor that seems to blind many.

Given that the Republicans have completely lost the position of being anti-government during their rule of the roost, perhaps it is time to open your eyes and begin to address the problem, rather than blame those heathen, hollywood worshipping Democrats.

What say you, Eric? What is that magical elf causing this to happen, and why do you seem to want to just blame the victim?


Posted by: gergle at May 22, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #150381

>>What say you, Eric? What is that magical elf causing this to happen, and why do you seem to want to just blame the victim?
Posted by: gergle at May 22, 2006 09:16 PM

Well said…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 22, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #150392

So I am here reading this rant from a person who is part of one of the two factions that so far as I can tell are the same except for a few relativly minor differences. However, what is it that I see…perhaps an attempt to rationally discuss the differences and come to some middle ground that allows the cooperation? Or instead do I hear HA HA the democrats are better than the republicans and over there I hear HA HA the republicans are better than the democrats. Elsewhere we hear HA HA the muslims are better than christions, HAHA the protestants are better than the catholics, boys better than girls, black than whits, straights than gays, rich than poor…..on and on and on the litiny of hate is perpetrated by the “average” man to what end? THat is all I want to know “to what end” do we find the value of hating eachother or seperating our selves for our minor differences. You know recently there was an atrocity commited based on minor if not non existant differences, that was a genocide of the Tutsis. Again to what END???

Posted by: Jeremiah Wade at May 22, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #150396

Jeremiah,
Well said!
All seem to lose sight when there is nothing to divide except crumbs.

Posted by: Ted at May 22, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #150397

My family is much better off than it was in the seventies. What we consider the bare minimum to survive in America is far above other countries. Two cars, televisions in every room, and video games. How about the size of our houses and how many people own them? The size of the pie has increased for everyone. Low unemployment. It was unheard of for someone to graduate high school and then qualify for home and car loans thirty years ago. College was impossible for most. I could go on and on.
As our businesses succeed so does our standard of living. Most profits are reinvested anyways. They don’t just sit on them. If they buy a boat, the factory thirty miles away from me gets and order. Some of my friends get overtime.That is how I understand redistribution of wealth.

Posted by: Kruser at May 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #150398

Ron Brown and bigkenzombie:

It is true that the Blue States subsidize the Red States to a large extent. All you have to do is look at the budgets of each Red State.

Posted by: Aldous at May 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #150399
If he were here and could vote in the next election, do you think he would vote for the uncaring or the caring party?

I think he would vote to end both political parties, they are both self-serving hate-filled egomaniacs that prey upon the weak for political power.

What I think is percieved by the left is the disingenous belief by Republicans that somehow it is magical that the disparity between the wealthy and poor is growing.

It’s not magical, it’s the result of the ‘helpful redistribution programs’ that have ballooned in size over the past 70 years. Where once 3% of the tax income of this country went to pay for helping the poor and private citizens, using human interaction to teach, mentor and give comfort, gave the people what they really need, now over 60% of the tax income of this country goes for redistribution programs making it antiseptic and sterile, no human interaction needed, none given.

No one is taught anymore what they need to do to better themsleves. No one is given an incentive to do the same. 3rd generation families reciving assistance, that’s something an american from 100 years ago would have never understood, even those in abject poverty. What they wanted was a chance, an opportunity. Today, there is more opportunity in the US than ever before, yet our citizenry squander it away. Don’t believe me? How many thousands of people flock here from other countries where they KNOW how bad it is while our own citizens leave those jobs to the illegal immigrants because they can get more for less by sitting on their asses collecting a check?

We are breeding a citizenry of people who know that they can vote themselves money from those who are better off than themselves. All clean and sterile, never having to explain themselves to anyone, just learn the system and exploit it.

Well done liberals, all for the glory of political power. I hope you are happy.

I’ll be out trying to help those poor people by giving them human aid and comfort, letting them know that someone REALLY cares, not just want to feel better than someone else because of how they vote.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #150400

And yes, that ALL this article is, a way to say “I’m better than you, I’m more compassionate that you, because I vote democrat.”

It’s disgusting when real help is needed and those cries ignored by the democratic party over and over again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #150408

I find this whole post amusing…that someone, who humiliates Bible believers, would actually and wrongfully use a biblical text as political support, is unbelievable.

Posted by: Cliff at May 22, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #150411


I can’ understand why the dems are always claiming the reps don’t want to help the poor.

After all, it is called a trickle down economy don’t you know.

Posted by: jlw at May 22, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #150413

Marys

The free market consists of market mechanism, rule of law and reasonable democracy in combination. It is a balance.

But you need to remember that you have to produce BEFORE you can redistribute. The situation for the poor in 1900 America was terrible by today’s standards, but it was remarkably good by historical standards and by world standards of the time because so much wealth had been created.

Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. He also said to render onto Caesar what is Caesars. He spoke of individual salvation. He didn’t advocate that the Romans raise taxes to give money to the poor.

Rhinehold

And I am with you about the cop out of claiming you vote to be generous. You cannot be generous with anybody’s money but your own. Generous liberals are not planning to give anything of their own when they demand than we raise taxes on someone else.

The other really big problem is that government programs don’t always do what they are intended. Welfare programs of the 1970s created a hopeless underclass and made lives worse for many of the poor. Those big government housing projects became centers for crime and suffering. The money spent on them was worse than wasted. It CREATED suffering.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #150414

It is true that the Blue States subsidize the Red States to a large extent. All you have to do is look at the budgets of each Red State.

Posted by: Aldous at May 22, 2006 10:22 PM

I know you know better.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 22, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #150417

Ron Brown:

Red States are leeches dependent on Federal Handouts. I think this will be my next Topic.

SUBSIDISED STATES: (Dollars received for every tax dollar paid)


North Dakota (2.03), New Mexico (1.89), Mississippi (1.84), Alaska (1.82), West Virginia (1.74), Montana (1.64), Alabama (1.61), South Dakota (1.59), Arkansas (1.53), Hawaii (1.52), Virginia (1.47), Oklahoma (1.47), Kentucky 1.46), Louisiana (1.44), Idaho (1.34), South Carolina (1.32), Missouri (1.32), Maine (1.31), Tennessee (1.24), Iowa (1.22), Arizona (1.20), Maryland (1.20), Nebraska (1.19), Utah (1.14), Kansas (1.14), Vermont (1.12), Pennsylvania (1.08), North Carolina (1.07), Rhode Island (1.06), Wyoming (1.05), Ohio (1.02), Georgia (1.01). (26 Red States, 6 Blue States)


BREAK-EVEN STATES:

Oregon (1.00), Florida (1.00) (1 Red State, 1 Blue State)


DONOR STATES:

Indiana (0.99), Texas (0.92), Washington (0.91), Michigan (0.90), Wisconsin (0.87), Delaware (0.85), California (0.81), New York (0.81), Colorado (0.79), Massachusetts (0.79), Illinois (0.77), Minnesota (0.77), Nevada (0.73), New Hampshire (0.68), Connecticut (0.64), New Jersey (0.62). (4 Red States, 12 Blue States).


Notable Exceptions:

Texas is a big donor state. Maine and Vermont, home to Old Yankee frugality and self-sufficiency, are subsidized states.

Posted by: Aldous at May 22, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #150418

As I understand the facts behind the statement that Republicans are more “religious” is has to do with church attendance. With the exception of african americans, if you are a church goer you are far more likely to be going to church.

As Ann Coulter says: (rough quote) “In America if you are white and go to church you are probably republican”.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 22, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #150420

Both sides are jumping around like bugs on a hot roof.

Too bad there can’t be a compromise instead of us vs. them.

I admit that I am very cynical of Jack’s premise that the market solves everything, even with regulation.

Perhaps if the government programs had more oversight? But gosh, that would cost more money, just like any effort to secure our borders would cost more money. What then left over for pork?

I think we all need to get a grip.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 22, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #150424

ooops:

Above I should have said

“With the exception of african americans, if you are a church goer you are far more likely to be going to be a Republican”.

Sorry,

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 22, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #150428
the Democrats embody more of the New Testament message of Jesus.

There’s no doubt about that. From opposing torture to giving the most needy among us a hand up, the Democratic Pary is closest to Jesus’ teachings.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #150431

AP: they could be a helluvalot closer.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 23, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #150433

Craig Holmes:

That’s only true if you’re an Evangelical Nut or a Mormon.

Posted by: Aldous at May 23, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #150434

Perhaps Paul is correct in his assertion that Democrats are more religious. Afterall, Paul, an undeniable Democrat, has once again taken a miniscule amount of data,leavened with a dash of factoids, and prepared a feast for the massess of Watchblog. It’s the miracle of the fishes and loaves all over again!

Posted by: goodkingned at May 23, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #150436

Church attendance does not a Christian make.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 23, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #150446

Jack and Rinehold, I agree that government handouts don’t solve poverty. I really don’t know many that think they do. Which Democrats exactly advocate that?

You two seem to have learned how to help yourselves, why do you say that isn’t taught anymore? Who taught you?

Rhinehold states that formerly 3% of taxes went to the poor, now 60%. I’m not sure where those figures come from, could you cite your source?

Do you consider social security a handout to the poor? Do you consider medicare a handout to the poor? Do you consider defense a hand out to the poor?

Please explain if wealth is being resdisributed from the rich to the poor, then why is the gap widening? Are taxes the only way an economy redistributes wealth?

What percentage of the poor vote? Is it higher or lower than the rich? I didn’t see the vote myself money on my ballot, which way do I vote to do that? If I work for say, Haliburton, who would I vote for?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: gergle at May 23, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #150448

“II Thessalonians 3:10 …..if any would not work, neither should he eat” Yeah, Paul the former pharisee, Paul the murderer of Stephen, Paul the original Charley Manson said A LOT of things that contradicted the teachings of Jesus who said, among other things, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s…”

“As a Conservative I believe in helping out those that truly need help. But I expect them to be trying to do for themselves.” Does that include Iraqis who for decades refused to help free themselves for the tyranny of Saddam? Guess not.

“Democrats want to do good with republican money.”
not completely true The filthy rich who happen to be republicans are not rich because they’re republicans, they’re republicans because they’re filthy rich. Democrats are equally happy to do good with the Kennedy money, the Heinz money, the Soros money and the money of all those fabulously overpaid showbiz types.

Posted by: Thom Houts at May 23, 2006 5:32 AM
Comment #150449
Rhinehold states that formerly 3% of taxes went to the poor, now 60%. I’m not sure where those figures come from, could you cite your source?

Sure:

US Federal Budget and the FRED Database. As quoted from ‘Captain Capitalism’:

For if you look at the federal budget over time and how we’ve “voted” to spend our money, you’ll note that wealth redistribution programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and so forth have taken a larger and larger percentage of the budget.

Going from all of 3% in 1943, this has now ballooned to over 64% in 2005, suggesting (nay, convicting) the government of not so much being an agent of governance as it is a political agent of wealth redistribution.

Consider the total percentage of the nation’s wealth that has been redistributed and it is very clear who is winning the ideological battle of economics;

Going from under 2% in 1947 now a full 12% is redistributed.

And when you consider that the two largest wealth redistribution programs (Medicare and Social Security) are going to balloon in the next 20 years…

So, from 3% of the budget to 64% to wealth redistribution plans.

From 2% of the wealth redistributed to 12% of the wealth redistributed.

And we STILL have an increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor.

One wonders if the fix isn’t making it worse?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 23, 2006 5:34 AM
Comment #150451

Paul, I found your article to represent the worst of the Democratic Party, and the I know it has a better side.

First, to malign Republicans because of what only some or perhaps many believe, is the same kind of over the top rhetoric we hear from Republicans about Democrats, speaking for all who affiliate with the party. This makes your comments about Republicans patently false, for what you say about them does not apply to all of them.

Second, you take the black and white approach. Cain bad, Abel good. Abel dead, Cain lived. Life is good for most of those strong enough to live it. But, strength to live does not make a good life. Republicans have a sound and rational basis for trying to moderate some of the Democrat party’s penchant for caring for their neighbor to the extent of harming all.

To view all government assistance as bad makes no more real world rational sense than no government at all. And conversely, government assistance for record breaking profiting corporations also makes no sense. Your article does nothing to bridge the differences, seek cooperation, and deliver solutions which have a chance of really solving problems for our nation.

Your perspective of “we good”, “they bad”, follows the cookie cutter pattern for politcal parties of divide and conquer. Well, I am here to tell you, many of us out here don’t want to be conquered by your party and its failings, any more than we want the same from the GOP.

I hope a majority of Americans are recognizing that the Democratic and Republican dinosaurs of our political system ARE the problem, and solutions to America’s difficulties can only come through a radical shift in the parties strategy and tactics or rejecting them outright. Personally, I think rejecting their Neanderthal logic, “we good”, “they bad” retorts is the best thing voters can do for themselves and our nation’s future.

Government by definition is assistance to a nation’s people. That can never be the issue. The issue is how much, where, when, and for how long. When your party begins to view government assistance in temporary terms instead of permanent, I might have reason to respect it again.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 7:22 AM
Comment #150454

Paul,
Although I have no use for the Republican party, I think your instinct to feel everyones pain goes too far. The world is too big to solve everyones problems and to the extent the Republicans talk about equal opportunity - I agree with them. Life is not fair, some have it easy and some have it impossibly hard.

What drives me crazy is when they talk about easing the tax burden on those who have it easy.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 23, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #150462

Gergle

Who talks about the handouts? I was responding to specific proposals, so if you want to know who advocates handouts figure out who wrote those proposals. (Hint: I think it is the Dem leadership).

We have a different philosophy about taxes and government and there is a misunderstanding about that.

I believe society is dynamic and interconnected. When government takes an action, it often does not produce the intended result because of this dynamism. Redistribution programs designed to help the poor often do not work and can make the situation for the poor worse. Many of the ostensibly generous social programs of the 1970s did just that. They helped to create an underclass and break down social and family structures. The seemly cruel bipartisan welfare reform of the late 1990s actually did a much better job of helping the poor.

There is also a problem with taxes. A tax increase of X will not produce X amount of revenue because the tax itself will alter the economy and incentives. And a tax cut of X will not cause a similar decline. Taxes are necessary, but they are destructive. The assumption is that government can use the money better than you can. For some things this is correct, but not for everything.

Government is not good at managing. The whole system of politics and bureaucracy creates disincentives to good decisions. So it is wise to limit government to those things it MUST do and those things it can do relatively well. Government MUST maintain security (provide for a common defense). Government CAN build infrastructure and invests in high risk or high cost projects that no private group could afford. Government fails when it tries to engineer society and much income redistribution falls into this categrory. BTW the natural operation of government leads to redistribution. The poor and the middle class do not pay enough in taxes to support infrastructures we all use.

So I am not in favor of lower taxes so that the rich can have more money. I don’t want to cut programs to hurt the poor. I do want the programs to work for the general welfare. When I mentioned those specific programs I opposed, I did it for specific reasons. In the case of helping mitigate the effects of the price of energy, it was because if we do that we lose the benefits of the higher price creating incentives to conserve and use alternatives. When I opposed the loans, it is because emergency loans tend to develop into dependencies.

One more thing you should consider. MOST government programs eventually are captured by the well off or the well connected. Government is a sharp tool and the rich and well connected figure out how to get a hold of it and how to use it. What percentage of a social program actually goes to the poor recipient?

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #150463

Rhinehold, how are we supposed to take anything seriously from a right wing blogger named “Captain Capitalism”? That’s not even a clever name.

And why don’t you throw these figures into the mix: In 1943 the wealthiest American elite were taxed at 93%, now they get away with only 35%.

To keep up with the religious theme, Jesus said, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”

And elsewhere the Bible explains, “He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.”

“He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.”

Are we a Christian nation, or not?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #150466

Rhinehold

well, except for the problem with your definitions of poor and wealth redistribution.

Are you saying we have more poverty now or in 1947? Is the degree of poverty the same? Has it remained flat or is it a steadily growing rate since 1947? Did we have a major reduction in death rates or hunger or degree of poverty since 1947?

Where did you account for the redistributio

n of wealth caused by WWII? Are you saying that had no eefects on employment or poverty? Is your stance that as long as the poor are willing to be cannon fodder then it’s o.k. to redistribute wealth to them?

Is social security and medicare wealth distribution? What is the cut off for collecting social security? Do people with health insurance recieve medicare? If you retire with $2 million in the bank can you use medicare?

Perhaps the fix isn’t really a fix. Perhaps it’s a fraud is what I suggest. Perhaps it’s not really redistributing wealth. Perhaps the wealthy aren’t the one’s paying for the balooning social security and medicare payments. Perhaps it was stolen fom the middleclass in general revenue funds to dole out payments to doctors and hospitals and defense contractors.

The vast majority of the “poverty” payments are to the working poor who’s employers we subsidize. They game the system to maximize their return at the expense of the middle class through the stupidity of these politicaly gerrymandered programs that benefit Insurance companies, healthcare industry and military contractors who in turn lobby to get their rewards.

While I will agree there is a small group of incorrigle poverty that money will not fix. They need education and psychological help. Some of them need severe behavoiral conditioning.

You failed to mention which Democrats are for throwing money at the problem and fail to recognize who the real lazy, valuless theives are here.

I don’t disagree that many of these programs are expensive and poorly administered, but Social security should be means tested. Medicare needs to operate in a true free market, not the insurance healthcare oligopoly we now have. The proof is in the numbers. Social Security has been bankrupted by raidng the general funds. These are not currently wealth redistribution programs. They are politcal contributor payoffs. What have the Republicans/Conservatives done to address that problem?

I don’t mind your anger at government spending or your desire to see free markets used, or even your bootsrap philisophy. I mind your complete refusal to see past the B.S. to the truth of the way this economy works.

I’ve managed engineering businesses that do government work for over twenty years. Those that benefit the most scream the loudest about free markets and government inefficiency while they fill their bank accounts with our tax dollars. Every company I’ve worked for charges more for governmental entities than those in the real free market and they all pay back to their politicians.

End corporate Welfare. It is the real problem in this country. We’ve turned corporations into more than ficticious people,we turned them into politcal super voters. Simplistic blaming of a class doesn’t solve the problem. The problem is the corrupt politics. Just starving government won’t solve it either. It’ll just hurt those most vunerable. There needs to be real awareness of the problem and voter responsiveness. When you spout the usual political rhetoric, it simply continues to hide the problem. You need to recognize your enemy before you can defeat it.

Limiting personal political contributions irregardless of wealth is a start. One person, one doller per vote, so to speak. Remove tax exempt status from churches and think tanks. Remove corporate tax exemptions. Perhaps a flat tax. Enforce Corporate charters resulting in corporate death from illegal activities, seize assets like we do drug dealers, Jail board members, executives and employees that engage in felony behavior.

Let’s get serious about conservative values.

Then lets talk about wealth redistribution and welfare.

Posted by: gergle at May 23, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #150470

We can hardly stand around an point fingers at the uninsured when:

The estimated number of people without health insurance has increased by 6 million since 2000, rising to 45.8 million, or more than one in seven people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The percentage of companies that offer health benefits - the primary source of insurance for people under 65 - fell to 60% last year from 69% in 2000, according to an annual survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which does health policy research.

The number of people who get health insurance through their employer dropped by 3.7 million from 2000 to 2004 while the population increased by 11.6 million.

The number of people insured through Medicaid and affiliated programs rose to 37.5 million, or 12.9% of the population.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online 2006-01-22

Posted by: Lynne at May 23, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #150482

Thom Houts
The only thing I care about over in Iraq is the fact that we have troops over there fighting and dieing. And this administration has screwed the pooch on the war. I could care less if they have a democracy, monarchy, or a dictator.
If they were all that upset with Saddam then they should have been shooting long before we got there.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 23, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #150507

>>If they were all that upset with Saddam then they should have been shooting long before we got there.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 23, 2006 10:59 AM

RB,

That’s how lasting democracies are formed. Not by having freedom shoved down your throat, but by the desire to become truely free. By desiring it enough to sacrifice your life in an effort to attain it. How free will be the people of Iraq, even if we ‘win’ this nonsense? How free can a people be who are dragged, kicking and screaming into freedom?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 23, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #150508

I couldn’t agree more that the Democrats have been given a bad name in regard to religion.
It is so unfair to say that the Republican Party represents the “Religious Right”.

There has been more good done for the less fortunate people of our nation when a strong Democrat has been in office. Just look at the work of Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity, who by the way was an ordain minister himself.

I am tired of people using the word liberalism as if it were a bad word. Lets look at the word liberalism for a moment. The root word is LIBERTY. My Bible tells me in II Cor.3:17 that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty. I know that we should not use our freedom in Christ as a cloak of maliciousness, but liberty or liberalism in and of its self is not a bad word. After all isn’t that what this nation is supposed to be about.

Posted by: Darby at May 23, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #150538

I have read comments about what is christian and are we a christian nation. I think that all of us have to simply follow the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Are we a Christian nation? The answer is on paper,NO! References in the forefathers writings notwithstanding,we are a secular nation. The choice as Americans is to help our neighbors and work hard towards a better life for ourselves and our children. It is not a religious dictate,but does come forth from a deeply spiritual place in the human psyche.

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #150548

Jack always says that “you can’t be generous with anybody’s money but your own.” That’s true if you think of generosity in terms of charity. You don’t borrow someone else’s money in order to donate to a poor person’s welfare.

However, there are lots of things that cannot be done on an individual basis. Two examples: Minimum wage and healthcare. If the government increases the minimum wage, all employers must do it and none suffer competitively. An individual can’t do much about healthcare for the poor, but government can ease the pain with a universal healthcare law.

Remer:

What I said does not apply to ALL Republicans. Of course not. What I said on the opposite side does not apply to ALL Democrats. It applies to most in each case. And, just because you are neither a Republican nor a Democrat does not mean you are a godsend to the republic.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 23, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #150554

Paul: the Governments money is OUR money

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #150555

jblym: WE are the government

Posted by: Thom Houts at May 23, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #150559

Thom in that case,is this a bad time to ask for a salary review?

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #150569

there’s never a bad time to ask for a salary review for an honest man

Posted by: Thom Houts at May 23, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #150573

Whether or not I am my brother’s keeper is my business, and especially it is my business to decide just how I will implement any altruistic impulses I may feel. If 51% of the electorate happen to feel they are their brothers’ keepers, more power to them. Nothing prevents from them acting on that feeling with their own money and that of those they can get to join them. Meanwhile, the other 49% should be free to do with their money what they see fit. I know that it is necessary and appropriate that simple majority vote determines just which individual is elected to office, but in cases where it is not necessary that the minority join with the majority for that majority portion to act as it will toward its idiosyncratic goals, the majority is simply wrong in forcing the minority to behave as though they do in fact share the goals of the majority. I have long thought that the framers of the Constitution erred in not making such a distinction. I also think they erred in not expressly forbidding government from providing services, other than those of law enforcement and national defense, of course. As it is, government has become little beyond an instrument for redistribution of wealth, and please don’t even begin to argue that that redistribution disproportionately benefits those you would decry as the wealthy.

Posted by: Erebus at May 23, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #150574

Red,blue,red,blue…one day I’ll take a paint stick and make purple.This has gone beyond dicussion into bickering.

Posted by: Theresa at May 23, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #150599

Paul Siegel,
Since you obviously know who is closer to God and who isn’t, perhaps you could lay down a tip from the Big Man about the NBA Finals. I’d like to get a bet down.

On a serious note, this is exactly how people discredit themselves. They don’t just disagree with the other party, they label them evil. Then, accuse the other party of doing that.

Paul, you are doing the very same thing you accuse the far right wing Christian zealots of doing. You might even be right about that, but in the process, you have become that which you hate.

Since the inception of the Welfare State in the US, charitable giving (% per person) has dropped. None the less, the people of the US give more to charity than any other group of people on earth. But according to Paul, about half of those people are evil.

Posted by: David C. at May 23, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #150609

Am I my brother’s keeper…..well…not if you cannot first take care of your own home….

Many countries do not allow immigrants that are not professional people. This is because they realize, in order to be in a position to take care of others - first you must take care of your own. The United States needs to take this stand. We all know many from other countries do come here and take advantage of our many advantages at the average taxpayers expense, however, Mexico is an immediate problem and needs be taken care of immediately. Note the following
1 -Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare. http://www.cis.org/
2 -The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtractiing taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year (Prof. Donald Huddle, Rice University)
3 -The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE
4 - 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens
5 -70% of the United States annual population growth (over 90% of California, Florida and New York) result from immigration
THE REST OF THESE ARE QUOTES FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
6 - 40% of all workers in LA County (LA county has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominateltly illegal immigrants, working without a green card
7 -95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens
8 -75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
9 - 2/3’s of births in Los Angeles County are to illegal aliens
10 -Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayer.
11 - Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican national here illegally.
12 -Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
13 - The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
14 - Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal. (We pay for this)
15 -21 radio stations in LA are Spanish speaking
16 - In LA County 5.1 million people speak English 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in LA County)

We are endangering our own future

Posted by: D.. Pierce at May 23, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #150628

Its insane to list the amount of spanish braodcasting stations as a negative. Hispanics should be applauded,they have already learned the lesson of so many immigrants. If they wont let you into their country clubs,start your own. Historically,the U.S. has always had pockets of immigrant population that was slow to assimilate. As far as street gangs,I sadly point out that this is a problem that is growing in all cultures throughout the U.S. And you forgot to mention that the largest population in American prisons is there for non violent drug offenses. Perhaps I am wrong,but to use statistics in an effort to scare and confuse is to adhere to a mindless mob mentality that punishes individual thought and compassion and rewads knee-jerk stupidity

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #150631

Aldous

That’s only true if you’re an Evangelical Nut or a Mormon.

So only evangelical nuts or mormons go to church. Great.

The actual research was done by pew research. It means that if you are white and go to church you are probably republican.


womanmarine:

Church attendance does not a Christian make.

I think church attendance is a rational basis for measuring religious conviction. I believe Republicans are more “religious” than Democrats. That does not imply that Republicans act more “Christian” than Democats, only that Republicans are more religious. Being more religious can also mean more judgmental, a bigger hypocrite etc. To say Republicans are more more “Christian” means to me that they act more like Christ than Democrats. As a Christian I would never say that, (or believe it either!!)

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 23, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #150642

Are you all working at being slow. The entire point is, if you care and your real interest is not just mudding the pool, that we are taking resources away from the people who first deserve and are paying for them and are legally entitled to them…..at risk. While these others do need many thing….as in your own home…do you put your own family in peril to go to the aid of another family…is that scriptual, or just a morally sound thing to do…I think not. Especially when the other families responsible members are capable of taking care of their own just will not…why should they when someone else will? THEN AS FAR AS ALL THIS CHRISTIANITY STUFF. CHRISTIANS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE AS FAR AS HAVING FAULT IS CONCERNED…IF YOU WERE ONE YOU WOULD KNOW THIS…THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIAN’S AND NON-CHRISTIANS IS THAT WE ARE FORGIVEN…..

Posted by: d. a. pierce at May 23, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #150650

Paul, I suggest you read your own article. If you meant to say some, or many Republicans, you should have said so. As your words stand, my criticism of your article is flat out accurate.

You said: “And, just because you are neither a Republican nor a Democrat does not mean you are a godsend to the republic.”

Don’t tell my Mom, OK?

I am the last one to profess being the second coming of anything - I leave that to Republicans and Democrats all promising to bring back the good old days. You know what, there weren’t any good old days, and those of us with some maturity are old enough to know that from personal experience if we recount the history we have witnessed. Some Democrats have always been corrupt. Some Republicans have always been corrupt. Only the system that supports and protects corruption has gotten worse. And the system is made up of? You got it, Democrats and Republicans. A+ for that correct answer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #150651

d.a. Pierce, forgiven in the next life, not this one! Check out death row. Full of Christians.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #150679

Yes David R. Remer….there are a lot of Christians in prison…and in death row especially. And in hospitals preparing to die,or praying for a loved one. Unfortunately, we seem to turn to God when we are in need. Fortunately, he listens…..sorry you are so bitter. If you think about it, at least they had the time on their hands to go over their lives and realize their need before it was to late. The good news is that we are Christians with our sins covered by the blood of Christ, he knows our carnal nature. I am sorry so many had to be a stumbling block to you, I wish it was not so.

Posted by: d.a. Pierce at May 23, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #150686

I have empathy for Christians. To blindly follow where the rest of the world dare not go. Must feel comfy to live in a nation dominated by fellow Christians reinforcing one’s belief in the words of so many wanabe’s. Christ was a great man, I take many of his teachings to heart. But he was a product of his time and ancestors before him. And the writers of the Bible were scribes editing the text of what they had heard by word of mouth through so many others. Fantastick stories of miracles found repeated again and again in the mythos of ancient civilizations.

Whatever comes after death, it sure won’t be what Christians teach their children. The whole heaven in the sky thing was debunked with Galileo, Copernicus, and Tyco. Yet, ye Christians still feed it to your children. I find that amazing. Given the their children will grow up to discover their parents lied to them about heaven up, hell down, easter bunnies, Santa’s, and tooth ferries leaving gifts for them in the middle of the night like thieves in reverse.

Works real well in politics too, to float the myths and legends like trickle down theory and Republicans are conservative. Yet so many tenaciously hold to those myths despite what their eyes reveal to them. Largest national debt since WWII, biggest government bureaucracy ever, and erosion of Constitutional rights, all in the name of belonging and security in numbers. It’s a sociologists wet dream.

Whatever floats your boat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #150708

David….You have a right to choose what you believe….the good thing is one day we will all find out. I honestly hope only the best for you and that someday your eyes are opened and your heart softened

Posted by: d.a. pierce at May 23, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #150835

And may Buddha’s enlightenment find you with your eyes open, and your heart ready, pierce.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 24, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #150846

Jack,
It was Rhinehold,I believe, who was ranting about welfare. I agree with most of what you said. I have a problem with those that somehow think that eliminating social welfare type programs will eliminate government waste, however. You are absolutely right that the well connected abuse and game most systems, in fact that was my point. It is often labeled wealth redistribution when, in fact, that is usually a minor portion of the program.

Posted by: gergle at May 24, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #150887

It’s not a black and white issue.

What every American needs to do this November is vote out ALL career politicians. Both the Democrats AND the Republicans are bought and paid for by Cororate America. They’re all in there for their OWN personal benefit. (greed)

Just look around everyone. Is the America we want and KNEW??? Time to clean house, TOP TO BOTTOM.

Posted by: Silent Majority at May 24, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #150889

Socialism is not synonymous with being religeous.

Satan worshipers are religeous. Will they help the poor and needy? LOL

Posted by: Silent Majority at May 24, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #150995

Silent Majority, quite right. The Senate is a millionaires club, and the House is working to catch up as fast as possible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 24, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #151158

Everything Marysdude said in this thread is spot on. Every. Single. Word.

So is most of what Paul said, but I’d like to offer a correction to:

The Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is the religious party.

That should read:

The Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is the Spiritual party.

The Republicans can be as Religious as all Hell (and so they are). Jesus warned against those who make great Show of their Religion:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the Hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward… But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him.

What is missing for most Conservatives is Spirituality. It is the sense of All Are Connected Through One which infuses Spirituality, and that cannot but lead to Empathy and Compassion in people. Traits which are sorely lacking in most pulpit-pounding right-wing bible-thumpers. And traits which are common amongst tree-hugging bleeding-heart Liberals.

As for the Buddha: well, David, don’t the Teachings say one should forego petty Power Trips and Ego Trips along the Way of life? I reckon there just as many Hypocrites amongst the self-proclaimed “Buddhists” as there are amongst the self-proclaimed “Christians.” The funny thing is, any one who *wants* to be a Good Buddhist has as much chance of passing a Camel through the eye of a Needle as they do of attaining Satori or Nirvana when they are All Blocked Up with personal Rage, Vengeance, and Powerlust. Don’t you agree?

Posted by: Bett(er)y at May 25, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #151320

Bett(er)y aka Ms. Burke:

Your last post is rich. I assume that as a true liberal you are expressing your sense of connectedness, empathy and compassion for conservatives when you refer to them as cockroaches and simple minded monkey flesh.

:

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #294945

Just two observations on the topic at hand:

1) If my neighbor eats junk food, and consumes or inhales substances that are known carcinogens, and if this neighbor does not exercise, i.e., doesn’t take very good care of his own health, am I obligated to ‘voluntarily’ donate my money in form of taxes, to help redeem his sickness brought on by his poor choices in how he lives?

2) When Cain asked the Lord, “Am I m brother’s keeper” he was insulting Able, whom he had recently murdered. Able was a keeper of sheep, i.e., Able had dominion over the sheep and other animals. He was not equal to them but a steward over them. Cain was asking the Lord, do I rule and pen and keep him in as he would his sheep? He thought he should dominate Able, and was greedy for Able’s flocks and wealth in the form of livestock.

Posted by: scott jones at February 2, 2010 12:56 AM
Post a comment