Hypothetical: voting and taxes

[Strings]

In theory, you're right: a religion (or, more specifically, a religious group) COULD preach against government intrusion. Unfortunately, *I* have yet to see this creature

And that isn't limited to the current discussion of monotheistic faiths, but ANY religious group I've heard make any sort of political statement (pagan groups tend to fall on the left side of the political spectrum).

Seems that, any time a religious group starts talking about politics, they are NOT looking to limit government intrusion in to folks' lives, but rather to have government intrude to stop what said group feels is "immoral"...

[MicroBalrog]

Well, Scientologists are against the income tax, does that count?

[Jamisjockey]

Far from being the only inference, it is actually a different discussion than what Ron and the quoted Founders were having. The point is not to make sure there are enough religious voters to keep all you heathen in line with your private lives. The point being made is that, in order to have a working republic, the voters have to have the moral character to resist the temptation to use government for their personal interests.

Also, don't jump to the conclusion that any religiously-motivated politics is anti-freedom. A religion could just as easily preach against government intrusion as for it.

Neither way is gauranteed. 

And the founders were motiviated by self interest.  (Yes, they wanted freedom and low taxation and smaller government mostly, but that's still self interest). 

[Perd Hapley]

In theory, you're right: a religion (or, more specifically, a religious group) COULD preach against government intrusion. Unfortunately, *I* have yet to see this creature

And that isn't limited to the current discussion of monotheistic faiths, but ANY religious group I've heard make any sort of political statement (pagan groups tend to fall on the left side of the political spectrum).

Seems that, any time a religious group starts talking about politics, they are NOT looking to limit government intrusion in to folks' lives, but rather to have government intrude to stop what said group feels is "immoral"...

And the crowds were questioning him, saying, "Then what shall we do?"
And he would answer and say to them, "The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise."
And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?"
And he said to them, " Collect no more than what you have been ordered to."
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:10-14

[Perd Hapley]

Neither way is gauranteed.  

And the founders were motiviated by self interest.  (Yes, they wanted freedom and low taxation and smaller government mostly, but that's still self interest).  

 Neither of which invalidates what I said.

Yes, of course they were motivated by self-interest. They recognized that everyone is motivated by self-interest, hence their concern about the dangers thereof.

[Ron]

Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.

I still want Ron to define what he means by "true religion".

True religion in the context I've used is religion that bears good fruit. I have no way of knowing what is in anybody's heart. But I do have the ability to observe, reason and draw conclusions.  

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?

Even so, every good tree brings forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.

Therefore, by their fruits you shall know them.

True religion is one that works out the "Greatest Commandment"

Then one of them, who was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him and saying, “Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?”

Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." This is the first and great commandment and the second is like unto it: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."


Of course me being a Christian believes the surest way to not go astray is to throw my lot in with Christ,  attempting to follow Him and his example.

Now even in the Bible there were men who were described as just and upright, yet they weren't believers. Humans who live a just, moral life as we all have observed are not only found among the ranks of the "religious". These are the folks who fall into the category above who I said practice a sound philosophy.  

For you libertarians and classical liberals. If you look at the life of Jesus and then the practice of the early church you will see the application of the non aggression principle. There was no desire to attain earthly power and authority, there was no attempt to use coercion to bring people to Christianity. Freedom to choose or reject Christ is the theme.

Early Christianity's focus was always on the individual, the individuals relationship to God. The individuals relationship to their neighbor, the individuals relationship to the state. Even the church, the assembly of believers when described as a whole is compared to our body. It is one body but made up of many different individual parts all needed to be considered whole. The concept of using coercive force to change hearts or lives is completely foreign to Christianity as found in the new testament.

[Tallpine]

the voters have to have the moral character to resist the temptation to use government for their personal interests

Agreed, but I just don't see the connection of that kind of moral character to religion.

It is sorta related to the "Golden Rule" in the sense that you don't want the government doing to others the sort of thing that you don't want it doing to you.

[Ron]

Agreed, but I just don't see the connection of that kind of moral character to religion.

It is sorta related to the "Golden Rule" in the sense that you don't want the government doing to others the sort of thing that you don't want it doing to you.

I fail to see how you can disconnect our cultures concept of what is good or moral from its religious foundation, particularly Christianity, that has always been there from the beginning.

Our civil society did not form in a vacuum.  

[Tallpine]

I fail to see how you can disconnect our cultures concept of what is good or moral from its religious foundation, particularly Christianity, that has always been there from the beginning.

Our civil society did not form in a vacuum.  

So how do you reconcile treating others as you would be treated, with for instance something like government laws against doing business on Sunday 

[Strings]

Actually, weren't the laws against homosexuality based on a passage or two in the Bible?

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, weren't the laws against homosexuality based on a passage or two in the Bible?

Of course not. Homosexuality has been condemned by many different kinds of cultures, with or without the Bible, and scorned by people with varying degrees of familiarity with or respect for Jewish/Christian scripture. Maybe it was because it was unusual, or against nature, or interfered with the family, or was seen as unhygienic. Whatever the reason, it certainly can't all be pinned on "a passage or two in the Bible."

[Strings]

OK... so, our culture in the States (our laws, our morals, and everything else) is based on "Christian thought". But the laws in the US against homosexuality were based on "many different cultures"

Gotcha

[roo_ster]

Of course not. Homosexuality has been condemned by many different kinds of cultures, with or without the Bible, and scorned by people with varying degrees of familiarity with or respect for Jewish/Christian scripture. Maybe it was because it was unusual, or against nature, or interfered with the family, or was seen as unhygienic. Whatever the reason, it certainly can't all be pinned on "a passage or two in the Bible."

Sanction against such behavior has been nearly universal across cultures, including those where Christianity was not a factor.

OK... so, our culture in the States (our laws, our morals, and everything else) is based on "Christian thought". But the laws in the US against homosexuality were based on "many different cultures"

Gotcha

Now you are just being deliberately obtuse.

[Strings]

No more obtuse than those suggesting that we are doomed because we've "moved away from our Christian roots"...

Maybe it's because I've dealt with some of the "faith-based bigotry" on a personal level. But I MUCH prefer church (ANY church) and state being kept VERY separate...

[Perd Hapley]

OK... so, our culture in the States (our laws, our morals, and everything else) is based on "Christian thought".

Who said that?

[Ron]

Who said that?

Any appeal to the traditional principles and philosophy that formed our western civilization by its very nature will contain principles and concepts informed by Christian thought. So I said it.

Most folks want to keep the benefits of the western world while rejecting the premises it has been built on over the centuries.

 

[Jamisjockey]

The true problem of the constitution is that it can be administered so called moral men who can impose statism at will with a clear conscious and call it moral and constitutional.  The loopholes are many, rightfully predicted by many of the anti federalists.

[Ron]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis -

While per se I'm not a libertarian I do consider myself a "classical liberal".

Attempting to lump all religion or all Christianity into one generalized category is an error.

Yes, much of modern and past Christianity in America has been infected with statism both of the left and right variety. Primarily through the public school system I would contend. Yet, there are still many throughout the various denominations that understand liberty.  

 

[Jamisjockey]

While per se I'm not a libertarian I do consider myself a "classical liberal".

Attempting to lump all religion or all Christianity into one generalized category is an error.

Yes, much of modern and past Christianity in America has been infected with statism both of the left and right variety. Primarily through the public school system I would contend. Yet, there are still many throughout the various denominations that understand liberty. 

But you cannot guarantee that the "right" leaders will do the "right" thing through our current social compact (which I reject the notion of being governed by social compact merely by being born).  You simply cannot, and they've proven time and time again that liberty will take a back seat to everything else.

[Ron]

But you cannot guarantee that the "right" leaders will do the "right" thing through our current social compact (which I reject the notion of being governed by social compact merely by being born).  You simply cannot, and they've proven time and time again that liberty will take a back seat to everything else.

That is the history of human civilization.

No matter how much you try to fetter the state it will fight to grow in size and authority.

The problem really isn't the state anyway.

The human condition is the problem. Most humans want an earthly King that will keep them safe, housed and fed.

Here in the USA instead of a monarch we have the tyranny of the bureaucracy.

At some point the majority no longer wanted to be free and cried for a king to tax them, send their children to war, regulate life and guarantee they would be taken care of by "his" benevolence.

[lysander6]

There is no such thing as too big to fail despite the mewlings of the government media complex.  The basic and fundamental problem of the US is size, it needs to be shattered into many peices and let the"marketplace of politics determine what comes out of the mix.

Maybe CA, OR and WA can form an Ecotopia that blends socialism with envirus concerns.  Maybe ID, NV, MT and Eastern WA can form a libertarian confederation.  The Northeast could fully realize their goal of bettering the USSR on the Atlantic seaboard.  The possibilities are endless.

Secession is not a four letter word.  The Federal government is too large, economically unsustainable and despotic.

[TommyGunn]

That is the history of human civilization.

No matter how much you try to fetter the state it will fight to grow in size and authority.

The problem really isn't the state anyway.

The human condition is the problem. Most humans want an earthly King that will keep them safe, housed and fed.

Here in the USA instead of a monarch we have the tyranny of the bureaucracy.

At some point the majority no longer wanted to be free and cried for a king to tax them, send their children to war, regulate life and guarantee they would be taken care of by "his" benevolence.

Huh?  Just who wants their children to be sent to war?

[roo_ster]

Huh?  Just who wants their children to be sent to war?

[TommyGunn]

Can we limit this to sane people?

[Strings]

>Can we limit this to sane people?<

Contradiction in terms