The Huckabee Logan Presidency Gives Cause For Concern
December 10th, 2007 by joe
POSITIVES:
- Sees both sides of an issue
- Publicly religious
- Teachable
- Kind to everyone
NEGATIVES:
- Takes both sides of an issue
- Politically religious
- Untrustworthy
- Kind to criminals
The whole Huckster controversy is enough to make one feel conflicted. Even though he is already being called the “Howard Dean” of 2008, and is getting clobbered in the press for various critical flip flops, I am the last one to want to take anything away from Huckabee after all he has accomplished in his life and the example he has set.
By losing goodness knows how many pounds he showed Americans it is possible to get a fresh start with one’s health simply by changing habits and hitting the jogging path.
Huckabee’s a personable fellow, a compelling, self-effacing public speaker, not afraid to wear his religiosity on his sleeve, and by all accounts a decent man. He’s an accomplished bass guitar player - certainly a cool skill to list on any prospective president’s resume.
As the Arkansas Times recently pointed out, he is “the immigrants’ friend” who makes John McCain “look like a nativist.” (Read all of that article, by the way).
This issue is where the problem arises with regard to Huckabee. The leader of a national advocacy organization said last week in an e-mail that, on the illegal immigration issue, Huckabee is “a carbon copy of President Bush.” Prominent opponents of illegal immigration call Huckabee a “disaster”:
“Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens.”
To his detractors Huckabee has said, simply, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice.”
Fair enough, I say: It’s a free country for Jesus juice drinkers of all persuasions. I take mine the way I like it - neat - and the Huckster should have the same options.
This forthrightness has earned him serious hits from GOP primary opponents and also from political leaders in his own state.
UPDATE: Much more, here.
More, below the fold.
Most recently, Huckabee unveiled a new illegal immigration policy which on the face of it appeared to be a solid agenda, but which also raised important questions about whether he does, in fact, know what he’s talking about. More, here:
He cribbed the plan from Mark Krikorian on the fly, and didn’t even do the basic homework to learn that INS no longer exists, but I’m expected to believe this represents a real conversion of thought?
Huckabee’s competence and honesty were called into question in the Wayne Dumond clemency case: The Huckster purportedly played a key role in gaining amnesty for the convicted rapist who subsequently committed rape and murder.
Yes, he certainly has a soft side, characterized by questionable decision-making, which has gotten him in trouble on more than one front.
It is, admittedly, a part of the man’s charm and apparent electability that he is not hard-edged. We ought to ask, however, whether such softness is what we want in a president. After he recently made a number of statements on foreign policy which call into question his understanding and his will, it is fair to ask if he is right for the job:
These statements, to my mind, reflect that at heart Mr. Huckabee, likeable as he is, is a man too swayed by squishy sentiment and emotion to be a determined wartime leader.
For me, the most instructive episode was his horrific treatment of Special Agent Aaron Pierce, because it illustrated the terrible consequences that result from a president who is soft in his thinking about world affairs: Ironically, such a viewpoint can lead to immense cruelty against those attempting to keep Americans safe.
As noted by someone smarter than me, President Huckabee Logan was undoubtedly the most treacherous in our nation’s history. I submit this was precisely a result of his seemingly gentle nature.
Who can forget the catastrophic consequences of President Huckabee Logan’s infamous flinch when he was faced with a decision about acceding to terrorists’ demands that he betray Russian President Suvarov?
Suvarov was undoubtedly a friend of America at a time when such an alliance represented a potential turning point in world history. Our nation watched in horror as President Huckabee Logan’s indecision - nay, ignorance - doomed the budding alliance. As so many professional commentators and private citizens observed in the weeks that followed: Crisis situations can turn soft guys into bad guys in an instant.
Well, as we all know, we got lucky that time around because someone had our back. The Huckster fooled many, but he did not fool Jack Bauer.
Bauer brought him to the brink of confessing his perfidy but Huckabee toughed it out and talked his way to a temporary reprieve.
Eventually, President Logan’s soft side was revealed as insidious and treasonous. The question we must ask ourselves is: As a country, do we really want to go there again?
Have we learned the lesson that a decent man and nice guy, who is nonetheless WRONG on important issues, might spell trouble in the real world, where decisions have consequences and personal achievements are no indication of fitness for national leadership?
UPDATE II: The single most Mongolian horde-like sacking of President Logan since Bauer himself did it.
This won’t do.
This entry was posted on Monday, December 10th, 2007 at 3:25 am and is filed under Campaign 2008, Politics, immigration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I would like my Jesus Juice served over ice in a U.S. Border Patrol Coffee Mug.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:03 am
HA! As long as you drink it all down you’ll be walking in the light, brutha.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“How is our government benefiting from an abandoned 1-year-old? I’m thinking as a parent, if I was in that position and my only crime was plucking a chicken to feed my family. I didn’t hurt anyone.”
You never need rule of law when you have compassion in your corner. BTW Did you notice ANY similarities between devine guidance of Huckleberry and Iran’s Ought-to-do-a-job? HELP!
December 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Maybe I missed a link somewhere, ACTivist, but where did you get that quote?
December 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
It’s from the article linked by “political leaders from his own state”. There is a veritable cornucopia of links in this post, I admit.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Thank you.
Arkansas has the 6th highest unemployment rate in the country: http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm
I do not believe that employers cannot find willing, legal employees.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
If this guy is a bass player that makes him Vice Pres material. I want my President playing lead guitar.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Hey, great minds do think alike - I spent a good portion of this weekend on bls.gov
Here is a good page:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm
December 10th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Jesus was kind to criminals, yourself included.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Mike Huckabee sure is a crazy, dangerous man:
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html
Immigration bill un-Christian, anti-life, governor says
Friday, Jan 28, 2005
LITTLE ROCK - Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.
…
Even if benefits to people who are in the U.S illegally could be stopped, “I don’t understand how a practicing Christian can turn his back on a child from this or any other state,” Huckabee said.
…
“I know Sen. Holt and Mr. McCutchen say they’re pro-life,” Huckabee said. “We’re trying to preserve the life of someone who, when born, will be an American citizen with his first breath. We can spend $900 on pre-natal care when the mother is pregnant. Instead, this bill would have us take a chance and spend $2,000 a day at Children’s hospital if the baby’s born and something has gone wrong. That’s anti-life.”
Huckabee said he took exception to characterization of immigrants in the bill and by its supporters as exploiters of social programs. “They pay sales taxes on their groceries,” Huckabee said. “They pay fuel taxes. If they’re using a fake Social Security number, they’re paying Social Security taxes and will never receive any benefit. It would be closer to the truth to say they’re subsidizing Joe McCutchen and Jim Holt more than the other way around.
“Something that’s not worth sharing is not worth celebrating,” Huckabee said. “This is the kind of country that opens its doors. This bill expresses an un-American attitude.”
December 10th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
zimzo,
I would be happy to disagree with you except I cannot really figure out what you are saying.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:10 am
While I may disagree with several of his views, one thing I do see and like. It appears that he is acting as a man of character, which I feel is the single most important issue in a person running for office.
From what I can glean, even his immigration stance, is based on a logical conclusion from ideology rather than anything based on pragmatism. For instance, one of the things the most strident opponents of illegal immigration (II) put forth is elimination of any government benefits for illegals. The reasoning behind it is pragmatism — get rid of the benefits, make the jurisdiction more hostile to II and illegals will go elsewhere, or even stay home. It is based in a pragmatic approach — whatever we do to send them home is good. Huckabee has a slightly different approach in that he sees someone that is sick on our doorstep as someone that is in need of mercy (a la, the rich man and Lazarus parable in the Bible). He is making decisions based on principle, and for that I have to give him his due, even if I do not agree with the basis (though for the children of illegals, I have to agree to the basis — a three year old does not choose where he lives).
The ideology is in where do we draw a line. I would tend to agree that a child on my doorstep that is in need of food and clothing needs food and clothing more than they need a lesson in international law and immigration. The parents? They need the law on immigration.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Brian, I appreciate that at least you are making some effort to justify your political views in light of your professed religious views. But are you truly saying that your notion of Christian charity extends only to children but not adults? Are you saying that an adult who is on your “doorstep that is in need of food and clothing” would be turned away (after a stern lecture) because they somehow got what’s coming to them? Is this a distinction Jesus would make?
By the way, happy holidays to you and everyone here.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:34 am
zimzo,
You are asking an and valid question. One verse that addresses this is 2 Th 3:10,
“he who does not work does not eat.” The Church always expected grown adults, who are not crippled to work.
Does this mean we do not cloth the naked adult? No! But we do expect more from them, and hold them to a different standard. Fair enough?
Merry Christmas to all.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:37 am
different standard than a child
December 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am
So, Brian, you are saying that illegal immigrants do not work?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Sorry, I see it was Jacob who said that.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Merry Christmas to you also, Zimzo.
Why don’t we step back for a second and just view the issue as a simple question about public policy:
Should everyone in the world be able to walk across the U.S. border and receive free public benefits? I mean everyone, every single person on the Earth. Let’s bear in mind the obvious fact that every dollar given to a non-U.S. citizen is a dollar that will not be given to a U.S. citizen.
If not, where exactly do we, as U.S. policy makers, draw the line?
December 11th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Joe,
I guess the humanitarians are thinking of the “fish and loaves” miracle, except that instead of reaching into baskets for an endless supply of food you just keep reaching into the U.S. taxpayers’ pockets for an endless supply of money.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
zimzo,
Another good question. It is not an issue of saying they do not work. It is a question of meeting obligations.
There is an obligation to NOT break the law. Illegal Aliens break the law when the enter the country, sign a lease under false identity, work under a false identity OR work of the books evading all taxes.
Brian is basically saying the children of these illegals need not be made to suffer for their parents illegal activity. Therefore charity towards these children is in keeping with Christian doctrine. Charity towards those who are putting themselves into this predicament is debatable. There actitivity akin those who refuse to work, and then ask to be fed.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I see that you all are being kind and charitable towards zimzo. Is it because it is Christmastime and the Christian thing to do? Does that make zimzo and adult or child being given this charity?
zimzo, the Christian thing to do is to help those who CANNOT help themselves. We also help those that are “down on their luck” as the term is stated. We tend not to help those that are users and take advantage of our charitable ways. Does that splain it any easier?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
How about if we don’t reframe the question to one you prefer to ask, Joe, and consider the question at hand.
When Huckabee made those comments he was specifically referring to a bill that denied all state benefits to illegal immigrants and their children, from education to medical care. He made the case, and a very good one at that, that as a Christian he must oppose this bill because it goes against his Christian beliefs that it is wrong to deny aid to those who are poor and suffering, regardless of their immigration status.
So among the questions raised are why is he wrong to make policy based on his heartfelt Christian beliefs when it contradicts your opinions but it is OK for others to do so when you agree with them? Where in the Bible does Jesus say that Christian charity may be withheld depending on one’s immigration status? Where does Jesus say it’s OK to allow adults to suffer but not children?
Jacob your valiant attempts to answer the questions raised are based on your opinions but don’t have too much biblical support, which is the issue at hand. I do not believe that Jesus said that we should disregard the suffering of those who have broken the law — in fact I believe he said just the opposite. And I believe you are making quite a stretch in interpreting the word “work” in the phrase “he who does not work does not eat” by claiming it contains hidden somewhere within the letters miscellaneous “obligations” such as not breaking immigration laws. I am certainly not aware of such a connotation in the word “work” and I doubt the writer of that passage was either. I think “work” means “work” and if you don’t think most illegal immigrants work, and work a lot harder than you ever have or ever will, then you are sadly mistaken.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
ACTivist, what scriptural support do you have for these opinions or are they just your opinions?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
And just to be clear, ACTivist, the phrase “God helps those who helps themselves,” which is the correct quote, does not appear in the Bible. It’s from Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Zimzo, I just happen to enjoy asking the question you cannot answer. I’m a simple man of modest means and my pleasures are few, so please forgive this one indulgence.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
zimzo,
you wrote:
” believe you are making quite a stretch in interpreting the word “work” in the phrase “he who does not work does not eat” by claiming it contains hidden somewhere within the letters miscellaneous “obligations” such as not breaking immigration laws”
my goodness you sound positively fundamentalist here!
I actually was trying to explain where I thought Brian W. was coming from.
As for my lack of biblical footing here, I will be happy to go and see what my concordance may say on the matter. As well as some other tracts. Not to mention a few other passages on charity in general.
Jesus is the friend of all law breakers, because WE are ALL law breakers. But Christ also challenged many to change their ways. He made it clear that to be forgiven one must repent. That means you stop doing whatever it is you are repenting about.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
May we step back for a moment and consider a small aspect of the issue? That aspect is, should ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS be eligible for in-state tuition? (Keep in mind that, for a given school year, there are a fixed number of slots for in-state students, so giving one to an illegal immigrant will take one from a legal resident, possibly an immigrant or the child of one.)
December 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Exactly. Thank you, Jack.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Actually, Jack, you are totally incorrect. There are not a fixed number of slots for students eligible for in-state tuition. Whether a student is granted that break or not has nothing to do with their admission. There may be a fixed number of slots of student who live in-state but from what I know of admissions, I doubt it’s a fixed number. If you are going to argue that every immigrant that is admitted takes the place of an American, then what about foreign students? Why not have an all-American student body? If you are going to argue that every out-of-state student admitted takes the place of a deserving in-state student, then why not have an all-in-state student body? The answer is obvious: it would be a pretty boring student body. I know you are not a big fan of diversity but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether an immigrant resident is granted in-state tuition or not.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
It’s not that I can’t answer your questions, Joe. It’s you who can’t answer mine, which is why you are trying to change the subject. But I will say that both of your questions are based on false premises. The first question presumes that everyone on Earth could or would come here, a scenario that is not even in the realm of possibilities and therefore not worth considering. Your second question presumes that every dollar that goes to an immigrant would go to an American, which is a false assumption and ignores the fact that immigrants also contribute dollars to the economy, some of which they don’t get back and which go to Americans, which was one of the points Huckabee made.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“If you are going to argue that every immigrant that is admitted takes the place of an American, then what about foreign students?”
I am NOT arguing that, zimzo. Foreign students generally pay OUT-OF-STATE tuition. An illegal immigrant IS a foreign student, and should also pay out-of-state tuition.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
“Jesus is the friend of all law breakers, because WE are ALL law breakers.”
Yes, thank you, Jacob.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:42 am
zimzo,
First and foremost, please *read* the poster’s ID. I am not jacob. Thanks for the catch, but hey!
I would say that the issue is that an adult who is on my doorstep illegally first needs to be arrested, then we can treat the sick and hungry and naked just before we deport them. The primary difference is that they need to be “in the system” from the standpoint of being returned from whence they came if they are not legally here in the first place. If someone comes to a hospital in need of care, declares they are an illegal alien, then we should arrest them, treat them, and deport them.
If a parent drops a child off at a hospital that is here illegally, I would not insist the child be deported or arrested. I might not want the child returned to the parent unless the parent agrees to go home (buy them a one way ticket, put them on the plane and wait until the plane is gone before relaxing the vigilance). If the parent doesn’t come back, treat the child as we would any orphan, citizen or not. It might seem cruel to allow the child to be separated from the parent, but if the parent has no respect for law, I’m not so sure the parent is capable of proper parenting.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Oh, zimzo, in-state and out-of-state in most universities are in fact allocated slots. The amount of money the state provides the college is fixed, and the tuition is fixed, that means the number of in-state tuition slots is fixed. The university charges full price for out-of-state tuition, but there is a maximum number of students at any university. If a foreign student, above the number of slots for foreign students, is admitted, an in-state slot is deleted. The colleges in Virginia have been coming under fire for this practice for several years. Out-of-state tuition is more profitable than in-state tuition, so the colleges have been filling out-of-state students more than in-state students as much as possible. There were some articles about this a while back, but I have not done a search on it recently … I suppose I can if you do not remember it. (I did a quick search, and while I did not find the original articles, I did find this:
http://www.100ideasva.com/?page=ideas&type=EDUCATION
with their #8 and #10 “ideas” referring to the problem.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Zimzo,
Sorry, I forgot this in the last post. As I stated before, there are a couple of things that can be said.
First, some people believe it is not the job of the government to provide charity at all. They would say the job of government is to provide protection of life and property from foreign/domestic invasion and to promote the moral good of the people. They would say that charity should come from the people, not the government (or the church). They argue (some very eloquently) that the individual and the church should do this, and the money would be much more wisely used. The government cannot do things through subjective measures, yet a local church could easily tell when someone is taking advantage of the “system” much more quickly. The more local an institution, the more likely it will be efficient as well (just what part of our tax dollars is used in overhead versus direct aid to the poor — want to take a guess?)
Merry Christmas zimzo. I truly do hope you see the real meaning of Christmas as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, God the Son, who took human form to save humans.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Again, Brian, you may think that an illegal immigrant should be arrested first and then treated but that is certainly not supported by anything in the Bible. Practically, it would lead to illegal immigrants not seeking treatment because of their fear of arrest.
I have been looking for the verse about arresting people first before you help them, but I can’t find it anywhere. Maybe Jacob can find a creative definition for one of the words in this passage the way he did with the word “work”:
Matthew 25
34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
As far as your claim that “charity should come from the people, not the government” the Bible also appears to be silent on this issue. Jesus seemed to be more concerned with making sure those who got charity get what they need and not concerned at all with where it comes from. Maybe you can find a passage in the Bible that proves me wrong, but I doubt it.
I hope that someday you, too, Brian, learn the true meaning of Christmas.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Great comments, Brian, thanks.
Zimzo, we are probably on the same page with regard to providing necessary emergency health care and making sure children are not left hungry and out in the cold. We don’t want kids suffering or diseased people walking around town.
The point is that illegals should not be here, so we need to pull back the welcome mat in every possible area that will encourage them to go back home. In-state tuition for college is a prime example of an absolutely egregious sell-out of the legal residents of a state. It amounts to taking money and opportunities from those here legally and giving it to those who are not. Not too hard to understand the injustice in that.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:05 am
[…] notion that Mike Huckabee is a softie should be the big story of the next couple […]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Well I’m glad we agree on something, Joe, and that you are not a complete Scrooge. However, taking away in-state tuition from the children of illegal immigrants is an example of punishing kids for something their parents perceived misdeeds. And I don’t quite see how it benefits society to deny education to someone who wants it.
I also question the efficacy of your strategy of pulling “back the welcome mat in every possible area” to “encourage them to go back home.” What makes you think that strategy will work? If you have no evidence of the efficacy of such a strategy it just sounds punitive. And it’s hard to see how denying education or medical care or driver’s licenses to immigrants or assuring them that they can report crimes without fear of deportation benefits society as whole and in fact is potentially quite harmful.
Then again, if I lived in a community where everyone was running around cutting off their noses to spite their faces and shooting themselves in the foot maybe that would encourage me to leave.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:36 am
You still haven’t answered the central question, zimzo: “Should ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS be eligible for in-state tuition?”
December 12th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I thought I already answered the question, Jack. Yes. I think tuition is too expensive for a lot of people and that no one should be denied an education because they can’t afford it. It benefits society as a whole when its members are educated. Even Adam Smith agrees. He identified four areas that were “beneficial to the whole society” — national defense, justice, good roads and communications and universal education — and “may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society.”
If the U.S. is going to compete in the world economy in the 21st century, it is going to need an educated populace, regardless of economic or immigration status. It’s hard to see how creating more uneducated people is “beneficial to the whole society.”
But I guess if you belong to the cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot community, it’s difficult for you to see that.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Good points, Zimzo, I am beginning to see the wisdom of your ways. By similar reasoning I would propose that if some less privileged people wanted Zimzo’s bicycle or his Blackberry, it would be cruel to deny them that opportunity and certainly would not benefit society.
As it turns out, I am that less privileged person, and if you write me directly via e-mail I shall provide my mailing address for your convenience in shipping the items.
As to the nature of our community, you may be interested to know that while we are still having issues with the whole nose-cutting phenomenon, we have almost completely laid off the foot-shooting. This was accomplished through community education about the true replacement cost of ammunition and footwear.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Only in your world, Joe, would Adam Smith be considered a socialist.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Jack,
We refer to them as Illegal ALIENS!
December 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
zimzo,
You are giving me the correct quote? To what? Assume and mis-interpret. I don’t care what Ben Franklin said. I didn’t state anything from the Bible. The saying “down on their luck” is common and that is what Christians also look for when helping others. I guess that is clear as mud to you.
Now, exactly WHAT society are you referring to? The world society? If you state that “If the U.S. is going to compete in the world economy in the 21st century, it is going to need an educated populace, regardless of economic or immigration status.” how does illegal aliens given the benefits of citizens help that cause? If they aren’t citizens then why would their alligence be to the U.S.? If they end up using that education to help their OWN country, where have we benefited? And why would we allow them a break in tuition to do that; especially over those U.S. citizens that deserve it? Where does you ever making a sensible arguement fit in to the picture?
December 12th, 2007 at 11:47 am
zimzo,
“And it’s hard to see how denying education or medical care or driver’s licenses to immigrants or assuring them that they can report crimes without fear of deportation benefits society as whole and in fact is potentially quite harmful.”
I liken that statement to having homosexuals come out of the closet. What was that going to hurt? Now they want special privelages and considerations and it has eaten at the moral fibre of our country. Illegals are no different. When will YOU ever draw a line and say “no more”. As I’ve stated before. You are willing to give away MY farm for your pursuits. Just take your infection south of our border and help these people you love so dearly make a better life in their own country. Otherwise, stand by our immigration laws and be done with it. Like Brian said, maybe we need a cap on immigration.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
OK, zimzo, just to make this perfectly clear, you think someone who has come here illegally should be given a place in college that would otherwise go to someone who is here legally?
So is it a general rule for you that law-breakers should be rewarded, or should suffer no consequences for breaking the law?
As for Adam Smith, you seem not to have read The Wealth of Nations, or you would note that he says, “The endowment of schools and colleges have, in this manner, not only corrupted the diligence of public teachers, but have rendered it almost impossible to have any good private ones.” http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Smith/smWN.html
Further on in the same passage, he says,
“But though the common people cannot, in any civilized society, be so well instructed as people of some rank and fortune, the most essential parts of education, however, to read, write, and account, can be acquired at so early a period of life that the greater part even of those who are to be bred to the lowest occupations have time to acquire them before they can be employed in those occupations. For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.
“The public can facilitate this acquisition by establishing in every parish or district a little school, where children may be taught for a reward so moderate that even a common labourer may afford it; the master being partly, but not wholly, paid by the public, because, if he was wholly, or even principally, paid by it, he would soon learn to neglect his business.”
You will notice that Smith says the teachers should NOT even be paid principally by the public, but by the students’ families.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Jack, I don’t think immigration status or economic status should be a consideration at all for admission.
If a student is rejected from one school because he has low grades or low test scores, he could be admitted to another school where someone else might be rejected for having lower grades or lower test scores. The only people who might not get to attend their first choice schools are those who should have worked harder and gotten better grades.
The only exception to this are those who get into a school because their parents went there or because their parents gave a lot of money to the school or those on sports scholarships. Are you worried about them replacing more deserving students?
Your question “is it a general rule for you that law-breakers should be rewarded, or should suffer no consequences for breaking the law?” is almost as silly as Joe’s question about whether I would like everyone on Earth to come to the United States. The short answer is no. The long answer are more questions: Are you so desperate to come up with some kind of argument to support your side that you have to resort to asking such ridiculous, embarrassing questions? Wouldn’t just conceding the point allow you to preserve some shred of dignity.
The Adam Smith quote I cited was from the Wealth of Nations.
The quotes you cited had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. They refer to private teachers who in the 18th century were being pushed out by public institutions. Good try, though.
ACTivist, you are entertaining as always. I hope you speak at the Republican convention.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Zimzo, YOU started with Adam Smith, not I, and you took it out of context, too. Here is the full paragraph:
“The expence of the institutions for education and religious instruction is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. This expence, however, might perhaps with equal propriety, and even with some advantage, be defrayed altogether by those who receive the immediate benefit of such education and instruction, or by the voluntary contribution of those who think they have occasion for either the one or the other.”
You will notice that he states clearly that there would be an advantage if those who received the education paid for it. You took only part of the conclusion of Book V, Chapter 1, and you took it out of context to say the opposite of what Smith really said.
So I am glad you do not want to reward all lawbreakers for their illegal actions. So why should these particular lawbreakers exempt from the consequences of their illegal activity?
December 12th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
No, Jack, once again you are incorrect. Apparently you are not very familiar with Wealth of Nations. Smith was writing at a time when public education was very rare. However, charitable parish schools in Scotland had raised literacy rates there and based on that experience he proposed a system of universal education, which was quite radical for the time and would not be realized until 1879. To achieve this goal he proposed a mix of private and public funding so that anyone regardless of economic status could acquire an education.
I brought him up because I think it’s ironic that those who claim to be his philosophical heirs seem to have such contempt for education, are continually attempting to make it more difficult for the poor to acquire education by cutting financial aid and seem to believe that the more ignorant the populace is the better their chances at re-election because their campaign strategies depend on appealing to people’s ignorance, immigration being the perfect example.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I ask all here to go back and read Book V, Chapter 1: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Smith/smWN.html
Then you can all judge between zimzo’s interpretation and mine.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Personally, I don’t give a damn what Adam Smith said about education. Either way, it’s one of the best investments of tax dollars we have. I’m all for helping out whoever we can get educated. We’re not talking about a free education, but just providing a break for local residents.
Republicans, correctly, assume that the dumber the people are, the more likely they are to believe their foolish rhetoric.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
inSanity — it is not just WHAT Smith said, but the logic he used to get to his conclusion, and the evidence we have that his conclusion was correct.
The fact is that the uneducated and ignorant vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Zimzo,
One thing that I think you state that needs correction. It isn’t the “perceived misdeeds” of the parents, it is the criminal action of the parents. An illegal alien is just that, illegal. They are criminals by definition of being here in violation of the law. It may be they feel they would be better off here, and that life may be very rough at home, but there are ways of immigrating that are legal. Violating those laws, then violating laws of employment, falsifying statements at every turn; that is hardly “perceived misdeeds”.
One of the things Jesus stated was not only that we should be doing well, but that we should “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar” which includes obedience to the law.
Also, you did not carefully read what I posted. I stated “some people believe” relating to the idea of the government providing charity. It is more a statement that even if you or I cannot find the reasoning. BTW, I would not want to resort to “proof texting” my doctrine in any case–it is a poor excuse for not digging into the systematic theology of what the scripture teaches. It is generally good to have clear scripture that immediately teaches what one’s doctrine contains, but it is hardly necessary to have that in order to be sure of a doctrine. While the trinity as a doctrine is never mentioned in scripture, the principle is contained in many passages, and even though people do dispute it, the arguments are spurious in the extreme if they rely on “the word trinity doesn’t appear in the Bible”.
Jesus taught (and he continued to teach through his apostles) that we are to submit to authority. That means that those who are thinking of breaking the laws here should stop, obey the law, and if that means they return to their country of origin, do exactly that. Those that are in open rebellion ought to stop that rebellion. It is not right to help someone sin, and helping someone break the law is tantamount to breaking the law as well.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Violating immigration laws is a misdemeanor. There is no one here, I would wager, who hasn’t committed a misdemeanor or two. Calling them “criminals,” like calling them “aliens” is a semantic strategy designed to dehumanize immigrants. Considering that you, Brian, are one of the most decent and thoughtful people who visit here it’s a shame that you would resort to such tactics.
Unlike most people who argue with conservative Christians I actually know the Bible and the theology pretty well (a fact I owe, in part believe it or not, to Joe) and it always amazes me how when the subject is homosexuality, they are always armed with the handful of vague badly translated Bible verses that mention it to justify their positions, but when the subject changes to a position they hold that appears to be the exact opposite of what the Bible says, like their stnginess toward the poor or opposition to illegal immigrants, suddenly it doesn’t seem so important to quote scripture. What was it the Bible said about “false teachers”?
I especially love the canard you repeated when you said, “Jesus taught (and he continued to teach through his apostles) that we are to submit to authority.” When Jesus said “render unto Caesar…” he was specifically talking about whether Jews should pay taxes (which plenty of Christians don’t seem to mind not doing). He never said people should go hungry rather than follow the law and broke Jewish law himself when he and his disciples picked grain on the Sabbath, as David ate the showbread on the sabbath before him. He never said Christians should obey unjust laws. Do you believe that Martin Luther King was being un-Christian when he broke segregation laws? Did you think those laws should be enforced?
You are perfectly entitled to be against illegal immigrants because you think they lower your property values or take away jobs you wouldn’t be willing to do or play their music too loud or because you just don’t like them, but there is absolutely no justification for such a stance in the Bible and considerable evidence that Jesus would be on the side of the immigrants. So please, don’t try to twist the words in the Bible to salve your own conscience.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Zimzo, “unlawful aliens” is the LEGAL TERM for those who have come here illegally. One is either a citizen or an alien. Calling them “immigrants” is misleading, because many have no intention of staying here permanently. All of them, however, are aliens.
As you say, being here illegally is a misdemeanor. The punishment is deportation. That certainly fits the crime. If you disagree, then propose a punishment that will discourage people who get a visa from simply staying here when their visas expire.
Why do you have more sympathy for the unlawful aliens than you do for those whose jobs they take?
December 14th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I’m not usually one to do a lot of Bible quoting, but since we just talked about this (though not in relation to immigration) in a class I’m taking at church this week, it’s fresh in my mind.
In Roman 13, Paul tells us: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
Our class had a hard time reconciling this with some of the oppressive governments operating today. Certainly the Romans had their oppressive moments, so it’s hard to understand where Paul is coming from.
In any case, IMO our immigration laws are not oppressive. There are legal ways to immigrate. Should those be expanded? Probably, but it doesn’t even make a lot of sense to do that if we’re not enforcing the current laws. People need to be working on that solution rather than making excuses for the lawbreakers.
Also, Zim, the question was not admission to schools, it was in-state tuition, meaning that our taxes are paying a portion of the students’ tuition, vs. legal citizens from other states who don’t get that break. My oldest sister went to UVA and we were out of state (from PA). She went on to grad school and paid out of state in CA. Took her 20+ years to pay off her all her loans.
I was not able to attend my first college of choice and instead went to a PA state school due to finances. (Turned out well, and things happen for a reason … not complaining, just saying that not everyone has it so easy in this country that we can afford to be supporting others as well).
You say that someone is “perfectly entitled to be against illegal immigrants…” but in VA at least, we are forced to pay for their college tuition. Maybe those who want to do so could set up a charity educational foundation, but I for one prefer my taxes be left out of it.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Note, Linda, that I specifically said that Jesus did not preach that we should submit to authorities. Romans 13 was written by St. Paul, who says a lot of problematic things, and this passage is indeed a problem for Christians. It appears to say that the American Revolution was un-Christian and support the notion of the divine right of kings. I’ve seen many people try to explain away this passage, but most prefer to ignore it except during years when there is a Republican administration. That’s the problem with basing your political views on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I’m not surprised that you don’t see immigration laws as oppressive, but that’s because they aren’t oppressive to you. Sure, there are legal ways to immigrate but the conditions are so onerous and the system is so outdated that it is impossible for many. It’s a lot easier for you I suppose to just see them as “lawbreakers” instead of as human beings who are desperate to provide for their families. Maybe you could try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.
The reason I referred to admission in the tuition discussion is that opponents of granting in-state tuition to immigrants were saying that every immigrant who is granted in-state tuition takes the place of a non-immigrant, that it’s a zero-sum game. But admision and financial aid are two different processes.
It’s funny how Americans seem to be more afraid of someone else getting a break they didn’t get than they are of making conditions better for everyone. This comes up a lot in the health care debate. Many people don’t want the uninsured to get health care because they feel that they were forced to take a job they hate to get health insurance so why shouldn’t everyone else. You weren’t allowed to go to your first-choice school because you couldn’t pay for it and now you think that should apply to everyone else. God forbid someone get something you didn’t get. You say, “I’m not complaining.” Well maybe you should complain. Maybe you should say it was unfair what happened to me and I don’t want that to happen to anyone else.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I should have made more clear … my point wasn’t that “I couldn’t pay for it and now that should apply to everyone else.” It was that I am one example … and there are many, many citizens who were/are worse off than me … so it’s not like this country is overflowing with $ to be given away. Maybe you don’t know many poor people, but they’re out there. Take a ride through the back roads of VA, WV, NC, SC, FL, NM (those godforsaken reservations, jeez!) …. and probably every state, but those are just the ones I’ve seen.
Our taxes are too high and should not be spent on helping illegal immigrants get college educations. I don’t wish ill for them, I just don’t think it makes sense to spend our limited resources that way. I have no problem with the fact that my family and I worked hard for what we have. I do have a problem with being forced by the gov’t to give it away for things that don’t make the most sense.
BTW, I did not mean for the Romans quote to be a direct argument against your comment, I do recognize that you said “Jesus” … it was just an additional perspective to the conversation. The Tea Party was one of the things I brought up during the class. It is an interesting and difficult passage, to be sure.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:45 am
zimzo,
“Maybe you should say it was unfair what happened to me and I don’t want that to happen to anyone else.”
Then you work to change the system. Those that can’t wait for something to come about usually take matters into their own hands and commit criminal offenses. Others condone it. I have put myself in your shows, zimzo, and one of the personalities you have made me feel like commiting suicide for being the argumentative brainless wonder you are. Now see what you gone and made me do. And during the Christmas season. You just keep bending your logic to fit your needs. “The tree is known by its fruit”. Or fruitcake. Get it? Christmas- zimzo-fruitcake?
December 14th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Jack,
I read book V. I especially like the part where judges are overworked and underpaid while lawyers are overpaid and useless.
The context is that the government needs to stay out of other business. It’s responsibility is for the defense of the community. And where there is a need for a product or service, the best way to fund it is for those who use the service/product, pay for that usage. Same with education. The community needed different skills and it is always better for someone with a skillset to stay with that skillset. For those needing a skillset, they need some education. Since you can’t rely on contributions and for the well-being of the community, an instructor is paid to educate. Doesn’t say anything is free nor guarenteed. It is also to gain a SKILLSET TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY! At the time community was townships, hamlets and the like. Expand that today as far as country and tell me who is being educated and for whose benefit.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Also … going back to the fact that the need is great and the resources limited … in thinking of the “country poor,” I didn’t even think to mention the inner cities. I used to volunteer as a tutor in DC (this was before I became hate-filled and angry, Sanity … don’t want to upset your worldview) and the poverty there is of course staggering.
One last thing, Zim … there are lots of laws and governments that don’t oppress me personally and I find them oppressive. Perfectly capable of making that distinction, thanks.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Linda B,
When it comes to public (institutional) education that regardless of your status, you either want to learn or you don’t. That in turn reflects on most things in life. Whether it be self-defense courses, sports, specific skill knowledge or anything; when the money comes out of YOUR OWN POCKET, you seem to make a better decision. Those limited in resources will work at that level available and if their intent is to truly excell, when more resources and higher levels avail themselves, these same people will continue to take advantage. Until they reach the point they desire, regardless of the time it took to get there. They also have learned many lessons in the intirum; be accountable and responsible for yourself, if you want it bad enough you can achieve it, pride in one’s abilities and accomplishments (which is no way a sin with God’s help) and you don’t need “freebies” or charity to progress.
We have institutions that are international. We have state institutions that are made for the citizens of THE STATE first; outside the state second and all others third. That is what our taxes are paying for-a break for legal residence to go to their own state institutions at a lesser rate. If it were not for a subsidy, everyone one would pay the same and in-state residence would have first option on admission. The institutions would like that because (as they consider it) they are losing money on in-state slots. There are still limited slots and so the reason of priority.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Linda, your class raised some good questions about Romans 13. It’s well worth thinking those questions through. Scholars and others who follow Jesus Christ have found some basic principles of interpretation helpful — things like asking: who was the original audience? what was the author trying to communicate to them? how would the message have affected their lives? how is my life similar to and different from the original audience? how should this message affect my life?
AUDIENCE:
St. Paul was writing to the small but fast growing Christian sect in Rome. They were still considered a Jewish cult by the Roman authorities. We know from other places, that Paul’s letter would have been read by Christian converts who worked for the Emperor. They were facing questions about what they should do as Christians under the current government system. To what degree should they risk their jobs and families? The Emperor was imprisoning Christians for treason and sending some to die in the arenas for the amusement of the crowds because they would not swear absolute allegiance to the Emperor or renounce Jesus Christ. Paul himself went to Rome in chains and likely lived there under house arrest until his own execution.
MESSAGE:
Elsewhere, Paul urges that Christians pray for government leaders. Here he says that governments are set up by God to discourage and punish wrongdoing. In view of that, the members of the fledgling Christian church should do the right thing and obey the government and they’ll be OK. In case of a conflict between God and government, we have Jesus final word on the subject “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s” and the apostle Peter (who was jailed for preaching Christ told the authorities that he had to obey God rather than man) later counseled the church to “Fear God. Honour the King.” The way the young church would be viewed by the government is very much at stake. Are they the political rebels that Jesus was initially mistaken for — out to overturn the government? Or are they good citizens who worship a God who is more powerful than their fear of death?
ORIGINAL AFFECT:
It is hard to imagine a government much more corrupt than the one leading the civilized world at that time. And yet, Paul assures the church that the leaders of their time have not escaped God’s sovereign control. The Christians can take comfort in the fact that even a bad government can still function for the overall good of the society by keeping order and punishing bad actors. Ultimately God will judge the leaders who do wrong — they are accountable to Him and He will set them up and take them down according to His purpose. The church can trust their God when their government is messed up. The church should respond to their government by obeying wherever they can do so in good conscience. They should not start a revolution to overthrow Nero and the members of the emperor’s household who are Christians should live peaceably and set a good example for others, not exposing themselves without need.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST:
Wherever government is unjust, Christians have infallible encouragement to put their hope in God alone. Christians also understand that government is supposed to discourage (not promote) evil. Yet, rome was a monarchy at the time when Paul was writing. Christians in the English tradition of common law are citizens equal under the law with their leaders. Law is King. We have responsibilities to work within the law to discourage wrongdoing.
PERSONAL EFFECT:
Pray for leaders and obey the law wherever possible. Pay my taxes. Love my neighbor and obey the 10 commandments (the government doesn’t make laws against those things). If they did, the law would not be binding (an unjust law is no law at all - though there may be temporal consequences for disobeying it). Civil disobedience is a powerful part of Christan history (Martin Luther King Jr., Mrs Aquino and countless others). That should be the normal approach when the “offense” or “injustice” of government is directed at our Christian belief. That’s the ordinary application.
What about revolution, as Zimzo raises? The Bible would rule out anarchy as a goal. But not all revolutions are anti-government. And God, in setting up and putting down leaders, uses people - so revolutions that put down tyrants are certainly as much within his sovereign control as the heart attack that might take down a tyrant. So, can a Christian ever correctly be in revolt against government and is there such a thing as a Christian revolution? A citizen who is a Christian can be a part of a “conservative revolution” — that is, a change in government that is itself submitted to governing authorities. This was the case with the American revolution. It was led by the governing authorities against other governing authorities. Both authorities claimed that “law is king” but they disagreed with how the other was obeying it. Their disagreement led to the violent separation of the group of colonies from the empire. But Chrisians who revolted did so as citizens in submission to their own elected legislators and from their positions as legislators elected to uphold the law. At the same time, there is no “Christian revolution.” Christian Tories were also obeying their governing authorities and many moved back across the ocean to follow their consciences. There is no biblical mandate that a Christian must ever participate in the violent overthrow of a government, even a conservative one (where upholding the law and establishing a more just society is the goal).
December 14th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Linda, I had no idea that the real reason many conservatives oppose illegal immigration is because they want to dedicate more resources to helping the poor in the U.S. That is certainly news to me. So are you saying that if we get rid of all these illegal immigrants then you would go along with national health care financial aid for everyone who wants to go to college who deserves to? I had no idea.
I’m sure you are perfectly capable of understanding that governments that don’t oppress you might oppress someone else. My point was that one is understandably less sensitive to oppression that affects other people than one is to oppression that affects oneself or people one is close to. When other people are oppressed you have to make a little more effort, which is difficult thing for anyone to do.
I think that is why the Golden Rule is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s easier to understand how one should treat others when you think about how you would like to be treated.
Or as God said in Leviticus 19:34: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God,” which I believe is translated in the official Help Save Loudon version of the Bible as “And God said, ‘Throw the bums out!’”
December 14th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
ACTivist, so true, working for something and paying for it out of one’s own pocket makes it that much more valuable and appreciated. I am all for that. But I also have no problem with public monies going toward public education and specifically higher ed as it would be entirely unaffordable for many otherwise (though I do recognize there is a fair amount of waste there, particularly in LoCo).
LC, Thank you for the analysis. Having read through once, your comments ring true to me. I need to read through a few more times to fully digest, but wanted to say I appreciate your thoughts.
Zim, “I had no idea that the real reason many conservatives oppose illegal immigration is because they want to dedicate more resources to helping the poor in the U.S.” Not speaking for others, but yes, that is one of the primary reasons I oppose illegal immigration … because illegals both use limited resources and take away jobs, affecting all citizens but primarily the poor. I would not make the jump to advocate for “national health care” either way, however.
As for “do unto others,” I understand Luxembourg and the UAE are rolling in money, but if they had refused to allow me to come to their countries and give me a break on college tuition without following the proper immigration procedures, well, I wouldn’t have blamed them. The point is, there is only so much we can do. It’s the reality. And IMO, we should be doing it for legal citizens.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Oh wow, this is cool.
Zimzo,
First — I’ll give to you the benefit of the doubt on this quote: “The only people who might not get to attend their first choice schools are those who should have worked harder and gotten better grades.” You must be ignorant of admission policies and that many schools admit those with lower grade point averages, and sometimes those that are going to a second choice school do so for financial considerations because their first choice school has no additional funding for students of a particular “type” (in-state tuition for example).
Now as to Romans 13 and “what Jesus said” — I have always accepted 2 Tim 3:16, and rejecting what that verse states is rejecting the pronouncement of the Council of Carthage of 397 in which the church recognized what God had given. 2 Tim 3:16 states “All scripture is inspired by God [ψεοπνευστος - literally, God breathed] ….”
Also, if you reject Paul, then you reject Peter “Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (NASB95 2 Peter 3:14 - 16) From this, Peter states the letters of Paul are sometimes hard to understand, but he says that some people distort them “as they do the rest of the scriptures” — Peter equates Paul’s writing to scripture.
Nothing of what we have of what Jesus said is by his own hand, but God worked through the apostles to assure portions of what he said (what God intended) was preserved, and in the same way assured that those who were apostles wrote infallibly what God intended. You don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are God’s word — you don’t have the authority to do so. Neither do I, or the Pope in Rome, or anyone else. God alone is the author. It is up to the church to receive what God has said, not judge what God has said.
As to the section in question, the rule of law is above the king as well. If a king breaks the law, they are guilty and the lesser magistrate is to hold them accountable. If that means the lesser magistrate tells citizens to rebel, there are conflicts between those in authority. While authority is from God, it is not absolute. E.g, the whole of Isaiah 10 is about an authority, Assyria, that is designated by God to chastise Israel, yet that authority is misused and God will punish those people.
There is legitimate authority and illegitimate authority. It quite a while for me to not think the founders of this country were in fact not traitors to the lawful authority of England — but the thing that finally changed my mind is finding that the king had violated the law, and those that declared this a free and separate state were not just citizens, but the lesser magistrates to whom the responsibility of protecting those under their care was duty. Just war is fought on just cause, just revolt is based on the authority violating the law to which they are bound.
While you point out that the government is never prohibited from showing kindness, you also never will find a verse that says the government is supposed to be the vehicle of charity — every single verse that talks about charity talks about individuals being charitable. For example, the laws of leaving the edges of a field unharvested and not picking up the gleanings of a field but leaving it to the poor are never giving the force of law (there is no punishment for harvesting to the edges of the fields, or picking up the gleanings). The reason is because charity is not something the government imposes on people — yet in this country it is imposed in the form of taxes. The government taking those taxes is a way for many people to say of a poor person “get help from the government” rather than helping themselves. For some, even if they wanted to help, they cannot, as the government has taken so much that there is none left for charity (taxed to poverty). Just as you say there is no verse stating the government is prohibited from being charitable, there is no verse saying a government is to show charity.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
C’mon, zimzo. Get with it.
Propose a punishment that will discourage people who get a visa from simply staying here when their visas expire.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:27 am
oh I can’t imagine why the bible doesn’t talk about social programs. Didn’t Rome invent SCHIP?
Council of Carthage of 397? Who cares? What makes them “legitimate authority?” You’re saying that the bible is the work of god because a group of men said so in 397? That makes no sense.
“he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
and how does Jesus and his execution fit in here? I guess he was asking for it. (”we have no king but Caesar”)
A punishment for people who overstay their visas? Crucify them! Then put their heads on stakes along the border. Our government can do what it wants because its authority comes from God himself.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Off your medicine again, Puffalump?
The Pentateuch was written long before the Roman Empire.
As for the Council of Carthage, it is only restating Timothy. You believe neither, so what does it matter?
Pilate wanted to release Jesus, because he found no fault in Him. The Jews, at the instigation of the priests, insisted on Jesus’ execution.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Marshmallow,
“A punishment for people who overstay their visas? Crucify them!”
Man are you getting overwrought. No one here is suggesting anything other than deportation. Are you trying to equate deportation with a death sentence?
It is a simple “give unto Caesar that …” which really implies Christians are called to be good citizens of the community.
As for where does Authority come from, countries that explicitly say it originates with the state and not God have very bloody records. The Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China combine for a body count of over 140 million. The National Socialists also placed the source of Authority with the state and the result is infamous.
What is most telling is that the for three cases above the majority of the violence and murder was committed against unarmed citizens far from the combat zone.
History is replete with examples of Man’s inhumanity, but the majority of the intense killing occurred during battle, invasion or the fall of a city. It was not until the last century when governments started murdering those they already has subjugated on a large scale.
What was the difference Marshmallow? The first mass slaughter was the terror during the French revolution. Is there a connection?
December 18th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Jacob you’re kidding. The first mass slaughter? Read Danial. You’re bending history to meet your needs (inquisition). Nothing personal, just thought I’d point that out.
Jack, you’re out of your element.
Now Jesus was a threat to the prevailing social order, and it got him killed. Did the people in control have the legal authority to order an execution? yes. did they derive their authority from the heavens? yes. So again, “he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
December 18th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Pilate, who had the legal authority to order Jesus’ execution, found no fault in Him and wanted Him released. However, the priests, who had NO such legal authority, threatened a riot, and Pilate acquiesed.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Marshmallow,
I knew you would bring up the inquisition. (It only works when no one is expecting the inquisition. ha ha!)
The inquisition killed many but not on the scale percentage wise by a long shot. God hounds (the Domini-cannes) were the order charged with rooting out heresy. Of those in the order, those seeking heresy numbered a few hundred at most. They worked in groups and the whole find-em, extract a confession, bring em before a trial, and finally execute the heretic took months. While this is horrific; it is still NOT mass slaughter.
Think 7M Ukrainians in a year, by Comrade Stalin. Mass slaughter involves killing as the end all. There is no pretext of legality. The Jews who were gassed in the camps where killed in their thousands, by Herr Hitler. Mass slaughter is warfare on ones own unarmed populace.
No personal insult taken.
Now, are you are trying to tell me that in Daniel the three men being thrown into a furnace is mass slaughter? I feel you are kiddng me once again.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Sorry, jacob, but I do have to point out that Joshua did quite a bit of conquering and masss slaughter.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Jack,
Go back and re-read the comment. Use glasses. I said that slaughter, during battle, siege and invasion was common. What was unique to the 20th century was the slaughter of subjugated noncombatants away from the battle field or war.
When the English went up to conquer Scotland (again and again) they slaughtered many. But that was invasion and war. This is more akin to the King of England marching up to York (English Citizens) and killing everyone in the town.
Killing your own people, or some subjugated people in the name of some nedulous ideological goal was a 20th century evil.
185 my foot.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:39 am
not ‘nedulous’, nebulous
December 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Ah, yes, the POINT of Joshua’s conquest was “to destroy all the inhabitants of the land.” (Joshua 9:24)
December 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Jacob I think that’s an artificial distinction. On the one hand you have leaders, claiming to have orders from God, sending in an army to kill everyone in a city and burn it down. On the other hand, you have leaders sending out their army to bring people to a camp in order to kill them there. You’re saying there’s an important difference? The difference is that they’re using gas, or a guillotine, instead of bronze swords and slingshots. The increased scale is due to technology, not some divine hocus pocus.
I think the underlying point you’re making is about societies depending on religion for their their sanity or their stability. But you really have to overlook a lot of religious insanity throughout history to buy that. So you’re saying that if the army is killing people in their hometown it’s somehow more justifiable than if it takes them to a camp first? If this distinction is necessary so as to keep your world-view intact, so be it. But it is artificial.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Marshmallow,
The Ukrainians were not at war with the Soviet Union. The Jews were not at war with the Third Reich. They were productive members of those societies. The Khmer Rouge Slaughtered other Cambodians after the revolution was long over.
The fall of a city like Jericho involved warfare and the noncombatants where not part if Israel.
When someone dies at the hands of another does matter. Death on the battlefield or in the sack, or during the invasion is different than the wholesale killing of noncombatants after the war.
The distinction is not artificial. For example: Refusing to take prisoners is one thing. Going into a POW camp and killing the inmates is another. The first, while brutal, is allowed under some circumstances, the second is invariably considered a crime.
The distinction may not be obvious sir, but it is important.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Marshmallow,
“So you’re saying that if the army is killing people in their hometown it’s somehow more justifiable than if it takes them to a camp first?”
If you think this is the distinction I am making then you are incorrect. See above. The distinction has a few parameters in play, they are:
1. it is a time of war
2. the noncombatants NOT part of YOUR political entity
In history prior to the 20th century if 1 and 2 were true, then slaughter and enslavement of noncombatants often occurred.
If either was false then the result was not mass slaughter. Whats the point of killing off your own peasants, thralls, or pleblians?
It was not until the past century that we saw mass murder of civilians populations not in armed rebellion against the sovereign power.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Jacob,
To them, the difference is mote because the difference goes against their world view.
It is like the story I heard a while back about a wife that goes to a psychiatrist to ask for help for her husband.
She tells him: “Doctor, you have to help. My husband insists he is dead. Can you do anything?”
He replies: “This will be easy! Send him in.” At which point the wife sends in her husband. The doctor asks him: “So you believe you are dead?”
Husband: “Yes.”
Doctor: “Do dead men bleed?”
Husband: “No.”
The doctor who had secretly taken a small lance used for drawing tiny amounts of blood quickly reached over and lanced the back of the man’s hand, which started bleeding. The doctor then exclaimed: “See you were wrong!”
The man replied: “Wow, you are right — dead men do bleed!”
It makes little sense to argue with Marshmellow and Jack. They will see the evidence in light of their world view. A “smoking gun” means nothing to them, because their world view is what they believe and how they interpret the data. If you ever read the Narnia Chronicles, the end has a bunch of dwarves that sit around and are sure they are in hideous conditions, and refuse to believe otherwise, even though they are in a very pleasant place. Their world view refused to allow them to be other than poor and retched, so they saw themselves that way.
There is no one so blind as those who refuse to see. They would say the same of us. The basic fundamental problem here though is the insistence that not only “the other side is wrong” but a lack of understanding why each side believes what they believe.
It is the same thing as when B. Clinton was supported by liberal women’s groups that ignored what was obvious to nearly anyone else that at the very least Clinton had done a quid pro quo exchange with M.L. If that had been a conservative or someone in private industry, there would have been calls for blood. B.C. was “good” so therefore whatever he did must be okay for the President to do.
World view (the lens through which we view the world) is the single most powerful influence “under the sun” (in an “Ecclesiastes” sense of the phrase) in how we think. In a sense, it takes a miracle to overcome world view.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Brian “Sigmund Freud” Withnell, thanks for the free psychoanalysis. The reference to a children’s fantasy series made it especially poignant. but you don’t know me, and telling me that I’m wrong and am incapable of recognizing it is a cop out.
Jacob, there are a lot of things in play here. Kings have been rounding up and killing political rivals since the beginning of time. Think of Harod, or Titus’ handling of the Jewish revolt, or that “Vlad the Real Dracula” guy. Thousands of years ago (or prior to the magna carta), common peasants had no influence whatsoever on politics. They’re role was to put up and shut up as the elites fought for control over them.
There have been popular uprisings throughout history, which have often been put down violently. I hope you don’t mind if I let you look up details on that yourself.
The point is this; you can say that secular governments kill their own people on a large scale, so we need a government that derives it’s authority from god. I think this is your essential argument. but one could also argue that crazy, paranoid leaders (Herod, Stalin) have always tried to maintain their power by killing off potential rivals. Changes in technology and philosophy have meant that these guys are not only fearful other elite pretenders to the throne anymore. Now they are worried about threats that come from the common people, too. That explanation makes more sense to me because it doesn’t depend on magic.
Bottom line, there are multiple explanations for this “historical trend.” Stalin was a nut, but it’s safe to assume that he would have adopted an “ends justify the means” position regardless of his religious persuasion. Now I’m saying it’s still an artificial distinction, because ultimately I don’t believe it’s relevant to Joe Blow whether he’s being killed by an invading army whose god told them to destroy his city, or fly a plane into his office building, or by some secular nut who’s rounding up everyone in the neighborhood because he’s afraid that the talk coming out of that neighborhood could spark a revolt or whatever.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Man, Puffalump, Brian has lumped me in with you.
I am depressed.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Marshmallow,
“Think of Harod, or Titus’ handling of the Jewish revolt”
You are making _my_ point sir. This happened during a time of armed revolt. The only thing violent the Jews did under Hitler was slice bread.
“Vlad the Real Dracula”, was at war eith the Turks. The majority of people he impaled (gruesome dude BTW) were turks.
“There have been popular uprisings throughout history, which have often been put down violently. I hope you don’t mind if I let you look up details on that yourself. ”
-Have we been having the same discussion?
-This statement is amazing in light of what I have written.
-Let me spell it out, pay CLOSE attention.
My point … (hint: start reading)
My POINT is that in the 20th century even in time of NO UPRISING the governments in many countries when on killing sprees.
For example:
Did the Ukrainians revolt? Answer: NO.
Did the Jews revolt? Answer: NO.
Where the Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge in revolt? Answer NO.
Yet millions died.
during Mao’s “cultural revolution” was the Chinese mainland in revolt? Answer: NO!!
Yet 10’s of millions died.
Why are you constructing strawmen?
“Changes in technology and philosophy have meant that these guys are not only fearful other elite pretenders to the throne anymore. Now they are worried about threats that come from the common people, too.”
This is the first part of your post that can be contrued as addressing what I have written. Congradulations.
Now, this is an interesting point. Your contention is that as democratic alternatives become available ‘the people’ become a target. Then why did this not happen in Rome or Greece?
“Now I’m saying it’s still an artificial distinction, because ultimately I don’t believe it’s relevant to Joe Blow whether he’s being killed by an invading army whose god told them to destroy his city, or fly a plane into his office building, or by some secular nut who’s rounding up everyone in the neighborhood because he’s afraid that the talk coming out of that neighborhood could spark a revolt or whatever.”
You are still missing the point. I am saying that the 20th century saw mass murder, by the government, during PEACE TIME. In the past mass slaughter occured during wartime. We can debate the why, but you cannot appear to wrap your head around the what.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Jacob, you’re flat wrong. Certainly, at first glance, it APPEARS to be like you say, but it’s not.
#1, today we have much better weapons, and can easily kill more people than we used to be able to, so “internal genocide” is a lot easier.
#2, we have much better communications now. in the past, what Hussein did to the Kurds would have gone completely unnoticed, simply BECAUSE it was internal to a country. Word would not have spread, it would not have made the history books.
#3, most nation and city-states were much smaller then. For instance, the tribes of Gaul kept beating the hell out each other. You would call them all wars, but if it happened today, you’d probably say, “See, it’s an internal issue in France.”
#4, it DID occur in the past. How can you forget Rome trying to hunt down and kill all the early Christians? (Which they called a Jewish cult.) They weren’t at war with Rome. You also shouldn’t forget all the mass killings in England with the Protestants vs. the Catholics. Not at war, just internal religious hatred.
As long as people use religion to inflame anger and hate, it will cause misery, suffering, and death, and it’s not helping. As long as people use religion to promote love, peace, and understanding, it will help.
There will always be wars because of leaders’ pursuit of money, power, and glory, regardless whether they’re religious or not. Seems to me that in most cases, having “God” on your side just makes the whole thing worse, not better.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Jacob,
The holocaust didn’t happen during a time of PEACE. I’m not suggesting that the people killed under Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot represented a threat to the regime. This was the justification that was used. Did every first born represent a threat to Herod? I think the first thing this Vlad guy did was to have all the other nobles in the region executed in order to consolidate power. Where they really threatening his rule? Who knows. My point is that in ancient times, the elite struggled with each other for regional power, and the guy who came out on top had his rivals killed. In modern times, when citizens have had more power in the political realm, violent leaders have looked at commoners as a threat (real or perceived) to their rule. There’s no PEACE times when the leadership is endlessly perceiving new threats. The bottom line is that this isn’t a new thing, but something that’s grown out of the cruel ruthlessness of the past. Why didn’t it happen in Rome or Greece? I don’t know, were Christians fighting an armed revolt against Nero?
Let me just say that it’s an interesting idea, but saying that this is an entirely new thing that’s driven by rulers not claiming a divine right or whatever doesn’t add up. Stalin, Hitler, Joshua, Herod, Dracula, Nero, Robespierre might have used different methods to slaughter innocents, what they had in common was they all had some idea that the ends justified the means. These guys were driven by the Dark Side (anger, fear, aggression), What’s it matter whether god was part of their equation or not?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
stick to your guns, Jack!
December 19th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Marshmallow,
You did not read what I wrote very well did you. I didn’t say you were wrong … I said that you have a different world view — you start with a different set of axioms. I also stated that people with differing axiom sets have trouble seeing the other side (that is true for all axiom sets from which people view the world, including the axiom set by which I live).
You should also note well that I did not address the post explicitly to you — it was “to” Jacob as a courtesy to him. You see, I think he also may be having trouble seeing the different axiom set from which he sees things, and why that makes all the difference in the world as to how you and he would interpret the exact same data. To someone in Nazi Germany (at least those that fell under the influence of the Nazi party) the problems of Germany were due to impure people within the country, and those that held back the Aryans from their “proper” place of dominance. Arguing with them would be useless, as they would (as we all) bend the world to fit their world view.
The reason why Jacob insists that there is a salient difference between Joe being killed by a violent revolt/war and being killed during a time of peace is that the difference is with the person doing the killing, not with the person being killed. I do tend to agree that, even if some killing occurred prior to this era, ethnic cleansing is more prevalent now that ever before. I do not believe this is just because of better communications, though better weapons could be part of the mix. I tend to think man is no better or worse today than ever before — that is mankind as a whole has been rotten at the core since being evicted from the garden.
BTW, it doesn’t take any “magic” as you put it to say the things Jacob has said are occurring are in fact happening. I believe I know Jacob is basing his world view from a view of the Christian Protestant Bible as a starting point. That axiom set has enough “freedom” within to allow for the current trend to be nothing more than the fall (humans being humans) working out at various times in various ways.
Jack — sorry — I used your name as one that has a differing world view from Jacobs as an example (which is likely true at least in part). The issue isn’t what the world view is, but that the world view is different. I may be mistaken, but I believe your world view is slightly different than Jacob’s.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Marshmallow,
Krystal Nacht happened long before the panzers rolled into Poland. The solution Jewish question began in 1933 not 1939. The Jews were not part of the allied resistance. The were singled out after the fighting was over in a given country, rounded and disposed of.
If the above is too much of a stretch for you then explain the Ukraine and China for example.
BTW, it does appear at this point given what you have written that your are getting my point. Now for your point …
“My point is that in ancient times, the elite struggled with each other for regional power, and the guy who came out on top had his rivals killed.”
It is an interesting point. I acknowledged it earlier in my 2:51pm post. You are saying that the rise of the modern democratic process after American revolution has lead those dictatorial types in power to view the populace they rule in the same light as their personal rivals. Which since their rivals ‘need killin’ then the populace also ‘needs killin’. Is this assessment of your position correct?
“What’s it matter whether god was part of their equation or not?”
It does, but I want to first make sure we are in agreement as to what your and my positions really are. Talking past one another is something neither of us seek. It is also way way late. I’ll respond some more tomorrow.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:46 am
It probably predates the Am. Rev. (see english peasant revolt of 13-something) …but close enough.
If you look at whatever ideologies and justifications were used by nazis or maoists, etc, you’ll probably find talk about how the targeted group is somehow “plotting against” the government. It’s hard to call that a “peace time” War exists when someone says it does. When the state declares a group to be an enemy, there’s no more peace. See “War on Terror” and “Sleeper Cells.” The war on terror will last for ever and ever because there could always be some more groups in hiding. As long as a paranoid government perceives a threat, there’s no peace. Krystalnacht didn’t happen in a time of peace because in happening it ended any peace.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:22 am
You know what they say … Just because the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man calls you paranoid doesn’t mean someone’s not out to get you.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Marshmallow,
“Krystalnacht didn’t happen in a time of peace because in happening it ended any peace.”
Most of your post was good with the exception of the above. Think about it. You have stood logic in its head.
Merry Christmas Marshmallow, you are a rascal.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
au contraire, I’m only saying that it’s odd to call it a “time of peace” when the government is sending out thugs and soldiers to torment and intimidate a certain segment of the population. What’s “peace” about that? Does there have to be a declaration of war to fit with your theory? If some paranoid king ruling by divine right attacks a village in a neighboring kingdom, claiming it was posing a threat to his rule, is it somehow more acceptable then if a paranoid godless dictator attacks a village under his control for the same reason? What’s the point?
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:58 am
Marshmallow,
Is there a difference between a mother killing her own children or someone killing anyone other than their own children?
A government attacking their own people is the “motherland” killing their own children. That is exactly why Tiananmen Square was such a horrid act. The death of 5000 people is bad as war between countries, it is outrageous when it is a government killing the people it is supposed to protect (the first job of legitimate government is to protect its own people). A government killing its own people? You don’t see a difference? Either you are naive or your world view is coming into conflict with common sense.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Let us look at the Soviet Union. David Bronstein had a two game advantage over Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1951 World Championship Match. He threw the last two games because they would have put his father back in jail had he won.
And this is the liberals’ image of an ideal society.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Yes, Jack, all liberals believe that the Soviet Union circa 1951 was the ideal society. Which I guess would mean that all conservatives believe that the ideal society would be Nazi Germany circa 1939. Now that I have invoked Godwin’s law, I challenge you to make this thread even stupider than it already is.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
[…] beg to differ, however. If you ask me, it’s the President Logan bandwagon which has reinvigorated the GOP […]
January 28th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Correction to zimzo: Far right-wingers are not fascists, they are anarchists. Did you take high school government?
January 28th, 2008 at 8:40 am
No, Zimzo never learned that fascists are SOCIALISTS, as in the National SOCIALIST Party.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
poker real money bonus…
Besonders casino poker games jugar apostar portales internet free t mobile ringtones poker texas pc spiel 1600 nokia ringtones…