Rant Warning... Again
Ok, this is another thing that really makes me mad about the left. One of their most effective strategies is to say that they will lower taxes on the poor and middle class and shift more of the burden onto the wealthy and "corporations." Here's why this is bogus: News Flash- There is no such thing as a tax on a corporation. Only individuals are taxed- either as owners of corporations, workers in corporations, or buyers of products from corporations. Any tax hike on a corporation ultimately effects individuals-owners, workers, consumers.
Example:
Joe owns company A that makes widgets. His gross income before taxes is $1,000,000. Currently Joe makes an after tax profit of approximately $650,000 (in a 35% tax bracket). He sells 100 of his widgets for a profit of $10,000 a piece. So currently a buyer of Joe's widget is effectively paying $3,500 in taxes.
If Obama gets elected he wants to raise Joe's tax bracket to 39% making his income $610,000 all things remaining equal. Joe is a businessman and is taking risk. It is good and right for Joe to make a profit. Joe now has a decision to make, either he will:
1. Take the pay cut and continue making 100 widgets per year and selling them for $10,000 each (this will not happen).
2. cut the pay of his workers or the quality of his materials by $40,000 and continue to sell the widgets for $10,000 each, in which case he will continue to make $650,000.
3. raise the price of his widgets by $400 each- still making $650,000.
4. do some combination of options 2 and 3 (this is most likely).
It is unlikely that Joe will take a pay cut, because every other producer of widgets doesn't want to take a pay cut, and doesn't have to. They just pass the increased cost along to workers or consumers, because that's what every other widget producer will do (assuming market forces work to drive the price to equilibrium, so that they get rewarded appropriately for the amount of risk they are taking).
Now, under Obama's plan the workers of corporations, or the consumers of corporations pay the taxes. Joe's widget's now cost $10,400 meaning you pay $3,900 in taxes instead of $3,500 in taxes, or the worker's pay has been cut so that the profit remains.
The reason politicians get away with this is because in figuring tax increases they don't take into account the effect of corporate taxes on the individual. Obama can say that his tax plan will reduce taxes on 95% of Americans, and it will reduce income taxes, but it will have an offsetting increase on embedded taxes in the products we all buy, thereby raising the tax burden across all classes of society.
I guess my point is, don't be fooled by the lure of the corporate tax, it is a myth, and a ploy used by politicians to buy your vote. Think about what this means for Obama and company. There are only two possibilities (if you can come up with a third please let me know):
Either they know the corporate tax is a sham and they peddle this to the unsuspecting American people, or they don't know their basic economics and are doing this with genuine motives. They are either conniving, or innocently ignorant.
I'll leave that decision to you,
JB
Posts
26 comments:
oh, please! and the R isn't buying your vote? Yeah Right! they are the ones scamming on poor, ignorant, well-meaning Americans!
jon, do you honestly think electing M/P will fix the "oppressive tax system"? they will no more fix it than they fixed abortion in the last 8 years. you know they will not implement the fair tax...they haven't even mentioned a word about it!
No sense in arguing about this, so let me ask you THIS question:
Let's just say the R's are elected and they have an all R congress, etc, with all the R values at their disposal and SP has "cleaned up Washington"...okay, so here we are with a perfectly lead gov't. There is a perfect free market, those not working are not eating, etc. Here's the question: WHAT is the church to do about those left behind. (Assuming the "able-bodied" adults who can work but don't are getting what they deserve; i am talking about those people's children and those babies not aborted and born into poverty, etc.) HOW do we help? How do we access EVERYONE who needs help? Answer that and I'll be impressed. Heck, I might even become a Republican.
Please tell me how the R is "buying" my vote. How are they scamming poor, ignorant, well-meaning Americans? Those people aren't voting for the R!!
Electing M/P will not perfectly fix anything, I just think their policies are better than O/B's. M/P will keep taxes low and make them lower, and will be less likely to regulate the crap out of business.
If R's are in the White House and Congress, I'm not so naive as to think that all the problems of the US and world will be fixed, it won't happen. All the people who need help won't get help, neither will they if O/B get in office. With the limitations and inefficiencies of government I don't trust them to do much of anything, which is why I want them out of many of the things they are involved in. The R are more likely to do what's in the best interest of the country as a whole for the long run rather than the short run.
There is no perfect person, politician, party, or government, and there won't be until God sets up His Kingdom in heaven.
You've convinced me to vote Republican!
COLBERT FOR PRESIDENT!
The reason I can no longer stand for the Republican party (with their "religious right"-ness and their faces painted red) is because they are exploiting the Christians. We owe the biggest apology to rest of the world because we preach love - the greatest commandment. And the Right's actions are completely out of sort with that. They want to force "Christian values" upon the rest of the nation: abortion, marriage, war, even death (euthanasia) and health care, and they will gladly and willingly use the government to put people under the stone cold condemnation of THEIR OWN law, all the while screaming about separation of church and state. The Right is doing this under a Christian guise and while they want to enforce their laws upon the masses, they want their pocket books all to themselves!
It is horrifying to see Christians just fall in line and spout off the same rhetoric - involving fear tactics and irrational assumptions - trying to influence the rest of the Body of Christ to do the same.
I'm not just trying to get people to think. I want us to think critically! Think about why people are different. Why they want things. Why they think their solutions are workable. Let's get to know (and LOVE) our neighbors and maybe we will come to understand their needs and how to help them!
The world is not all black and white. There are definite absolutes! And we can take comfort in the knowledge that what we think the truth is has no effect on what the truth actually is! And we seem so unbelievably arrogant when we act as if we’ve got a monopoly on truth.
I think, because I’ve been that kind of person before, that it’s easy to be arrogant (and I’m not saying you are, Jon, I’m talking about politics in general) when you’ve never really messed up BIG TIME and had to be saved from something you knew you couldn’t get out of by yourself. I thank God that He let me become something horrifying so that I would never forget who I become without Him. I thank Him for letting me see that grace is sufficient and very relevant for today’s world. I am very grateful that He has given me friends many different places and perspectives in life so that I can always be reminded of how it feels to be on the outside looking in on other Christian’s who seem to have it all figured out.
Lord, help us. It’s no wonder they run from us screaming.
Oh, Jesus, come quickly and set up your kingdom! In the meantime, teach us how to genuinely love you and love others.
amen sista! TESTIFY! i don't know who you are, but i like you! actually, your post almost made me do a double-fisted "YESSS!" with a pelvic thrust!
jon, how the R is buying your vote: let me spell it out carefully: a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n. (hopefully i spelled that right, hee hee!) love ya cuz. p.s. you didn't answer my question. i'm waiting!
Ashley, change takes time, a long time, a long long time. I wish changes would happen quicker, but with the engrained special interests that we have in Washington, the grass roots effort will be the key to victory in abortion and taxation. People will have to be informed about the issues, and be won over one at a time. Eventually the people will not stand for the type of taxation, spending, and abortion rights (among other things) that are currently in our country. In the mean time, I will vote for people who are willing to stand for the rights of the unborn and stand on the right side of the tax issue. To say they are "buying my vote" with their stand on abortion assumes that they truly don't care about the issue, but they are just using it to get votes. I gave you my reasoning for why Corporate taxation was a "vote buying" ploy, please explain to me how this issue is a vote buying ploy by the R.
It is very interesting to me that the new tactic in the abortion issue on the left is to say as you did on your blog "All who it doesn't apply to shouldn't boast an opinion" or to say "The moral and ethical dimension of this issue is above my paygrade." As though there is such a thing as being undecided on this issue. You then describe how much money it costs to raise a child and based on the fact that many people do not lift a finger to help, you are for allowing abortion. I ain't no science rocket, but that is an opinion!
The issue of abortion has implications for everyone, so everyone should have an opinion about it. If the government allows the systematic irradication of a group in society that is weaker and is deemed "inconvenient", how long will it be before your group is defined as weak and inconvenient? It is a question of basic civil rights for all groups in society. This is not a scare tactic, it can really happen, just ask the 1 in 25 Jewish people who survived concentration camps.
To illustrate, how could you possibly draw a distinction between a healthy child in the womb at 9 months and a brand new one minute post partum baby?
If Obama believed in infanticide, and held all of his other positions would you still vote for him?
On your question:
I did answer it. I reject your premise that Democrats will be able to effectively and sustainably help all people who truly need help. Which is why I said "If R's are in the White House and Congress, I'm not so naive as to think that all the problems of the US and world will be fixed, it won't happen. All the people who need help won't get help, neither will they if O/B get in office."
Kristen,
Please explain how the right wants to impose their religious values on others in ways that others don't want to. You seem to be saying that they do this and others do not.
Everyone wants to impose their deeply held beliefs on others. Dem's want to impose their agenda on everyone, but somehow they get a pass because they are "secular" as though there is such a thing. Just because people want to legislate something doesn't mean they want to impose religious beliefs on them. I understand the Marriage issue, the war perhaps, but what do you mean on the issue of abortion, death, and health care? Please explain those three things.
When you say "they want to keep their pocketbooks for themselves." Are you implying that the government's is justified in taking people's money from them and redeploying it for the betterment of society? Or am I reading too much into your comment? Here are some facts- Republicans are more generous than Democrats with their disposable income on the whole, and they pay more in taxes than Democrats so I don't really understand your caricature.
You said:
"And we can take comfort in the knowledge that what we think the truth is has no effect on what the truth actually is!"
I agree with you that our opinion about truth does not change what is actually true, which should cause us to think very carefully about truth, and to be humble about it.
I also agree with you that most people who call themselves Christians don't do any amount of justice in reflecting Christ to others (as if any of us do a whole lot). Some of them are unkind, non-compassionate, closed-minded, and can come across as "holier than thou." Why should we be surprised when sinners act like sinners? There are redeemed sinners and unredeemed sinners, and we ought never forget that. We ought to be willing to kindly and compassionately deal with people where they are. Our attitudes, and compassion should shine through our strong opinions enough to make people feel comfortable coming to us with their problems. Of course, if people just assume that we will be judgmental, and condescending then we can't really do anything about that closed-mindedness, other than to try and change that stereotype. I think, by God's grace, it is changing.
Thanks again for your thoughts,
Jon
Seriously. Arg! Explain myself? Uh…this is where you get smarter than me. Didn’t they require you to take some kind of “argue your point more effectively” class in seminary? Because I’ve never done that. Needless, I will try to explain. Even though Scott is snoring on the couch. Even though a I went to the ball game tonight and heard people talking about how you said I gave you a “hard time”. Even though a million other things.
Let’s start this way. I have not once in my commenting even been irritated. If I am frustrated it is more with myself than anything else! I hate my lack of education and knowledge! I totally abuse the exclamation point! It should be taken from me as an option of punctuation! I should be grounded from the exclamation point!
Another thing I need to say before explaining myself. I do not like abortion. It is tragic. I wish it were not so. I am just not convinced that making it illegal is the most beneficial way to solve the problem.
Another thing I need to say. I DO NOT HAVE ANSWERS! (I’m also abusing the caps lock button! EXCLAMATION POINT!) I have questions and things I think are not the answers, but no answers. Helpful, I know.
You asked me to explain:
Abortion – There are some who believe that life starts at conception. There are those who interpret the Scriptures differently and could possibly believe that it does not (see ps. 131) and who are we to tell them what is what?
Death – You brought this to mind when you made the (I think very irrational) jump from abortion to something about becoming an inconvenience to society and being euthanized against your own will. How long before that? Well, how long before you use another fear tactic? Boo yah! Just kidding. It’s late. Euthanization, I think, is something that is not a black and white issue. Stay off this one Jon, ok? I have suffering family members and I’m not interested in the heartache it would cause. However, if you have a clear WRONG WRONG WRONG mentality without any kind of thoughtfulness of the possibility that it may just be humane in some instances then I think that would be forcing an issue from a religious side. It may be wrong but I don’t have the answers, just the questions.
Health care – It comes down to money. I’m completely willing to pay more taxes if it means that my friend can get her bleeding stomach ulcer fixed and I’m going to be frank here because it seems to be necessary to drive the point home, every time she goes to the bathroom the toilet has blood in it, because you see, her full time job doesn’t offer insurance. Oh yeah, her other job doesn’t offer insurance either. And medicade, well, she moved and her mail never got to her address. It was returned to the medicade office and so now she has to go through the whole application again before she can receive any medical care. Uh huh, she went to the free clinic. They wouldn’t see her. What’s that? Well, she only makes minimum wage and she’s got rent, electricity, gas, GAS, car, phone, credit card, etc. to pay for. She’s just really responsible like that. Don’t guys like you commend that kind of thing? Still, she lives with more doubt about the church than faith because she has an eyebrow ring and a lip ring and tattoos and purple hair and she uses the “f” word a lot and has had sex with lots of people and has done lots of drugs. But they’ve looked at her in demeaning ways and told her that her look is satanic and that what she’s doing with her life is wrong and bad. If they knew that she has one of the biggest hearts I’ve ever come in contact with maybe they’d have changed their minds, but I don’t think they’d believed me if I told them.
I don’t think that the church in general is elitist, demeaning, and judgmental. I think there are certain people who have projected this kind of “church” onto mainstream America because they just love to make their judgment known! (I saw a picture of a church sign today that said “I kissed a girl and I liked it – and then I went to hell.”) What I think, and here is an answer for you, we have to take responsibility for those Christians. After all, we are one Body, and a lot can be done when we say “here, I’m a Christian and I’m willing to help you” even when the only way we can do that is through tax dollars. Even though the person may not live a life that we know to be sinful.
Now, my friend would never set foot inside a church at this point, but man could she ever use a trip to the doctor. I hope she get’s that chance. I hope she realized that there were Christians who were glad to give up their money in order to help her and other people like her. I hope that one day God will call her in a way that she finds impossible to resist.
Religious right zealots love to talk about socialism. I say, ideally, I’d love to see it on a voluntary level. Isn’t that how the first church lived? Sharing what they had so that nobody went without? VOLENTARY SOCIALISM. Wouldn’t that be beautiful? But the religious right says “I give better when I can give where I want to and to whom I want to and it’s all about me and what I want to do with my money.” Not at all the attitude of the church.
I know they were not taking care of their entire nation, but just of other members of their group. Still, ideally I like it. So, is the government justified in taking the money from you? Hmmm…I think a better question is are you justified in wanting to keep it for yourself?
Let’s all take a litmus test here and ask ourselves “Am I a person that has been approached by nonbelievers during hard and hurtful times in their lives?” And also, “How can I love those who I will have no direct contact with most effectively?” We live in such a media driven age that saying we have no influence over those with whom we have no direct contact is ludicrous.
I pray the stereotype is changing. If do one thing with my life I hope it is showing people like my friend that Jesus loves them.
Scott usually proofreads for me and he’s asleep so I’m sorry if this is completely incoherent. Also, he’s not responsible for my past grammar or spelling mistakes. I take full responsibility.
Wow this is long. I’m sleepy.
Kristen
Kristen,
I hope my writing does not come across as irritated or frustrated, because I am not either. I come into this with eyes wide open, knowing that not everyone is going to agree with me on everything. I operate on the assumption that those who disagree with me have not come to their conclusions in a vacuum, but have put a great deal of thought into their positions. I see it as a learning experience for all involved, both participators and viewers. My goal certainly is to persuade first, but also inform.
On abortion- I'll ask you the same question I asked Ashley. At what point in either the gestational period, or post part um would you be in favor of legislation that protects the life of a child?
Death- Currently 90% of the unborn who are found to have Down's Syndrome, are aborted. Gender selective abortion happens all the time. Babies that are found to have disabilities pre-birth are much more likely to be aborted than their "normal" brethren (and sistren).
My concern is that as we continue down this road our "Culture of Death" will make it increasingly difficult to know where to draw the line, and the envelope will be pushed from abortion rights, to mercy or convenience killing of the unwilling, to infanticide, to genocide etc. Yeah, we may be 50 years away from bad stuff like that, but it can happen.
When you said "I'm not just trying to get people to think. I want us to think critically! Think about why people are different. Why they want things. Why they think their solutions are workable." I would take it a step further and say "Think about what the trajectory that we put this country on will cause us to become in 50 years." We have a lot of historical precedent for many policies that politicians want to enact, that do not work. We need to be good students of history on these things, because we cannot afford to reinvent the wheel and go through some of the debacles that have been caused by socialistic, or communistic ideals. We know where those governmental structures end up.
Please take what I'm about to say with the best of intentions. By saying this I'm not saying that I haven't done the same thing. When things are said like "It is horrifying to see Christians just fall in line and spout off the same rhetoric - involving fear tactics and irrational assumptions - trying to influence the rest of the Body of Christ to do the same." or "they are the ones scamming on poor, ignorant, well-meaning Americans!" it comes across as demeaning because it puts those who disagree with you as being sheepish, and unthoughtful as though they haven't put a lot of thought into what they say. Anytime we disagree there is an obvious assumption that the other party is wrong (otherwise we would hold the other's position). I'll grant you that I haven't thought about these things from every possible angle, and that many people on both sides of these issues haven't put much thought into these issues, but I don't see how this language that could be taken as offensive (as unintentional as it certainly is) helps the dialogue. I just want us to be aware of that. I invite you to point out times where I have done the same thing, I assure you it was unintentional. I think I could have come across that way in this original post (which was on corporate taxation believe it or not!!), but it is a very complicated matter that most people simply don't think about, and you almost have to have a degree in economics to notice it without it being pointed out- it certainly had to be pointed out to me. I really believe that many people who push corporate taxation are either largely ignorant, or deceptive, maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of another possibility. Anyway, that was an aside that I hope will help the dialogue.
As I have said before, the church has got to step up. We have to admit our own sin, deal with the reality of our abiding corruption, and reach out to people where they are, not where we think they ought to be. Putting on like we've got it all together is lying. Expecting others to live up to our standards before loving them proves that we don't truly understand grace. We turn Romans 5:8 on it's head instead of " God demonstrates His love for us in that while we were yet sinners..." we act as though it says "God demonstrates how great we are in that, while we were yet diamonds, Christ died for us to show our great value."
The amazing thing about God's grace is not that some people never receive it, but that I have received it. I cannot figure out why I would be a partaker in God's grace, it makes no sense to me. If I were God I certainly wouldn't extend my grace to someone like me who spurns it daily, is prideful and self-reliant, doesn't lead his family like he ought, struggles with temptations and sins that show how much he doesn't trust His promises, and is woefully inadequate in his prayer and devotional life. My righteousness truly is "filthy rags." But God demonstrates His love for us, in that while were yet sinners like Jonathan, Christ died for us. Thank God He is not like me.
That being said, our belief in the gospel should push us to help others. The problem is not the gospel, but that many people in the church don't believe it. Until we have communities who live in the reality of the amazing grace and redemption that we have in Christ, I'm afraid the church will remain as largely irrelevant as it has been in the past, and to a large extent is today. I hope churches who do not live in that reality would get on board (my preference) or die, because they do more harm than good, and they are not churches anyway- not naming any names here, but it is painfully obvious (to the world and other churches who live in that reality at least) when a church does not live in the reality of the redemption that we have in Christ. I want to call the church to a radical reformation, then perhaps we can speak with more credibility on these issues.
Ok long enough, I'm out.
Jon
My two cents...On November 4th we are not electing a pope or a preacher we are electing a president. 1) I don't think either of these candidates will immediately improve our country or "cure" it 2) The only reason why abortion, embyronic research, or any other "social" issues come up is because the government has taken a stance on it and now we have to find which side of the aisle we agree with 3) Is the church being abused in the political process? YES! Both liberal and conservative denominations are being taken advantage of and that's just the way it is
Politics is politics and you can have your own personal opinions that you have passionate feelings on. For Jonathan there are several issues most important abortion and the economy. Ashley has her issues and so does Kristin.
Me personally I am a Constitutionalist. I am a strict interpretter of the Constitution and I think we as a country have gotten away from this document. That's why I liked Ron Paul in the primaries and almost voted for him, but Huckabee got me with the Fair Tax. (Because I think it is very Constitutional) I along with Kristin have alot of questions and I try my best to think through them from a Biblical perspective as well as a global. Now, that may sound a little hypocritical but as I said earlier we are not electing a minister of the USA come Nov. 4th we are electing a President. Someone who must lead us in a time of war, through a difficult economy, and someone who can answer tough questions about real life issues. Personally I don't know if McCain can be a great president, but I do think he is better prepared to do the job than Obama is. Ashley you are right not all issues are Black and White. But coming to an answer that you truly believe in on these difficult questions doesn't mean that you have it all figured out it just means that for that person they fill that they do.
One example... for me growing up drinking alcohol was a sin. I mean if you had a sip of anything that hinted of alcohol you were going to hell. But since I have grown up, got married, started pastoring and raising children my opinion has changed on that issue. I don't think that drinking is a sin. Matter of fact I love drinking good dark beer when I have the opportunities to share in a good dark beer with anyone who will join me. Sometimes people change and truly I hope that I always have a willingness to grow and learn and think through difficult questions in a humble open minded way.
Bottom line do I think taxes are oppresive? YES! Do I think we can find a better way that is more Constitutional? YES! Do I agree with Jonathan that raising corporate taxes hurts the consumer and the worker? YES! Does this means I have it all figured out and can't be proven wrong? NO! I believe in a free market Capitalistic economy, but do I count on this type of economy to improve my life or make me a better person? NO! If you take out housing and health insurance which the church gives me seperately to pay for each month I earn just over $30,000 a year. Now, I say this to show you that I am by no means a wealthy man. Matter of fact I just got a second job throwing papers so I could make an extra $600 a month to make sure all our bills are getting paid, we can afford a few more groceries and gas, and maybe start putting away whatever might be left in savings. (which I don't anticipate being that much) I don't count of the government to provide anything for me. Does this mean I am special and that others who do are degenerates? NO! But each individual must ask themselves the question are they doing all they can to provide for themselves? We must each try to shoulder the load together as best as we can, and those who can't provide for themselves we must find a way to assist them.
jon, jason, jon, jason, i....where do i start? okay. it's late so forgive me if i am a bit brash ("i used to be a lady, but this prairie living's made me blunt").
so, there are so many things to respond to, and i don't feel like re-reading a million times, so here goes in random order:
no, jon, of course i don't believe in "infanticide." however, if abortion is made illegal, trust me, history will repeat itself and there will be a whole lot more cases of "overlying" and "SIDS", which to me is sadder than abortion. yes, that is an opinion ... on WHO should have an opinion. i have not taken a side (openly). do i have an opinion, yes, but do i feel obligated to share it: no. you assume you know my opinion, but you, in fact, don't. i don't feel i have the right to be in on that discussion. blah blah blah. and why is EVERYTHING i say "the new tactic"? as if i don't have my own original thoughts and ideas? i never talk about politics (and therefore "borrow" opinions) with anyone, and i don't have cable at home or the newspaper, so where exactly would i be getting these "new tactics" from???
jason, if you are pulling in 30 G's after shelter and insurance, then you're doing a heck of a lot better than us! the difference between you and me is this: life circumstances. everyone's situation is different. for example, me and your wife: i'm guessing she and i have the same gig, based on your past comments. you: not sure what your exact job is or what hours it requires, but i'm guessing it can't be more than my husband's. sure he could take on a second job, but the emotional health of our family would deteriorate to almost certain demise. okay, so for you, balancing in a second job is a possibility...that's great. my husband can't or won't take a second job, so that leaves it up to me. okay, so i could work outside the home....but that would pretty much compromise my personal family values, so we are stuck with one income. let's say there was a gov't program that could help me stay at home instead of work: would i take it...yes! i would throw my "pride" to the wind and stay happily at home with my family as long as possible. okay, now i'm rambling...
i am sorry you pulled out the drinking card, because this happens to be a hot issue with me. did i read right that you are employed by the church? and then you are openly claiming to love your beer? talk about a stumbling block. i have learned that a major perk of becoming "reformed" is the alcohol, but i didn't know it was so open. what will you tell your kids when they want to go out partying in about 15-16 years? again, i'm not trying to be mean, rude, or nasty here... truthfully, i'm just shocked...and disappointed, and i don't even know you! that's how much of a pedestal we "lay people" have you "clergy" on.
well, i fear i've said too much, because it's now midnight and i feel like i've been typing awhile. rather than re-read and edit this, i will leave it up to you, jon-boy. my children will be waking me up in 6 hours and i'm more of a 10-hour girl.
Ok, so you're willing to allow abortion because it may increase the likelihood of SIDS or overlying? I took the liberty of looking up the statistics on that and it showed that one of these two phenomena happen to about 1 in 200 infants. There are approximately 1.3 Million abortions per year. We would increase SIDS and overlying by 6600 if we stopped all abortions. The upside would be that we stop 1,293,400 abortions. I know we wouldn't stop all abortions, just giving a hypothetical. Do you see why I don't buy this argument?
I didn't say that I knew what your opinion was about the morality of abortion, but it is obvious to me that you have an opinion by the fact that you are willing to base the value of the child on the choice of the mother. That's the whole debate. Nobody is saying that abortion is a great thing. We have differences on who has rights, when they have rights and who's rights should supercede who's and at what point(s).
RE: New Tactic- It was unfair of me to lump you in with the Dem rhetoric on this issue, I'm sorry. I was pointing out that your rationale sounded much like Obama's line at the Saddleback Civil Forum where, when asked when life began he said it was "...above my paygrade."
You say you don't believe in infanticide (I believe you). So you don't mind the laws on the books that say that at birth human life should be protected by the government? If Obama held a position that allowed for the killing of children born alive, would you still vote for him? (this is not to trick you into the whole Born Alive Infant Protection Act thing, though that is very troubling.).
Not to defend Jason, but if you can find a verse of Scripture that teaches that you cannot drink in moderation, I bet you could convince him to never drink again.
As far as alcohol being "a major perk of becoming 'reformed'"
Well, it's really not, there are many tee-totalling "reformed" Christians, and many more "non-reformed" Christians who believe that it's ok to drink in moderation.
The basic tenet of reformed theology is that the Bible dictates doctrine and practice, and that we should seek to constantly reform ourselves to biblical standards- this is a very Baptist principle.
Thanks for your comments Ashley. I must say that I am sorry that I offended you with telling you I had no problem with alcohol and that I myself do drink on occasion. And I should have clarified that it is only on a few occasions and never in the presence of my children, because of the fact that I want to be responsible to teach them the fundamentals of Christianity before it is time to worry about secondary matters, which to me drinking is. Now, people abuse things very frequently in this world whether it be sex, money or the aforementioned alcohol. But, does this mean we throw away all of these things because there are those that abuse them? Of course not. Now you say that I am too open with my "love" of beer? The word "love" was me embellishing and I shouldn't have used such a strong word, but the point I was trying to make was that I do enjoy a pint of two every now and then. And only dark beer, I did stress that because I am not some trashy red-neck drinking Natural light or Bud Light or Miller Lite or Coors Light from a can! I am a whole lot more dignified than that! I do think you saying that it is because I am Reformed is hilarious because I have never made the correlation between the two, but now that you mention it I guess I should thank Martin Luther for that as well. And I was not disclosing it to the world I was merely disclosing it to the 5 people that apparently read this blog. (2 more than what read mine might I add)
However, I think you taking that point and running with it was a bit unfair. The point I was trying to make was that our feelings and opinions on certain things change througout our lives. You said it is a "hot issue" for you right now so I guess that means you are thinking through it as well in some way. And for you to think that me being employed by a church negates that I should have a conviction or an opinion on the issue is just silly. Of course I should have an opinion on it that's what I get paid to do. Read the Bible, get my best understanding of it through praying and research, and deliver that to the congregation. Now, again the fact that you disagree with my opinion is fine. But as Jonathan said show me scripture that goes against my view and I would be happy to change my mind. You bring up my children going to parties at 15-16 because I drink? SERIOUSLY! Do you know of any children who went to parties and drank whose parents didn't drink? I DO! And the reason was not their parents stance on the issue, it was because of a lack of solid teaching on the issue. As I said earlier I NEVER drink in front of my children because it's not beneficial for me to do that. However, when they are older and more mature then I will teach them what scripture and the Laws of the land are on the issue. AND don't say that is hypocritical because that is life. You don't teach kindergarteners about sex (unless you are Obama) because they aren't mature enough to handle that type of information at that age. Life is a learning process and when it is time for them to know the truth about certain things I will happily teach them.
Secondly, I completely understand about your family situation. That is why I get up at 2 in the morning to throw papers so I can be home by 5 AM and not miss spending time with my family. That's why my wife didn't get a job outside the home, because that was our main concern.
Finally, you said "I don't even know you". And there in lies the biggest problem. We don't know each other and we don't know the others personality. So I try to be as understanding as I possibly can be when responding to your views and comments because I don't know you exact situation and how you've come to the views that you hold. Personally I find it odd that you can hold a pro-choice view on abortion but then be so upset over alcohol. But I don't judge you for that or think you to be unregenerate because of it. We are two different people prioritizing our own personal views and issues as they come up in our lives. God is the only one who can judge the rightness or wrongness of our stances so I will leave that up to Him.
jon, i didn't hear the "above my paygrade" thing. but, great minds do think alike!
jason, i do apologize for the mini attack. let me answer you, though. (1) you don't have to explain to me about when you get up to work and how you make ends meet and how you justify drinking alcohol. i know because you are friends with jon that you are a good guy who tries. (2)alcohol. there are many verses in the Bible (in addition to personal reasons)which aided, a long time ago (in high school, then re-thunk again in college when the Christian friends got into it--beginning on opening day at the Christian college when some idiot got up there in front of the whole freshman class and said "Jesus's first miracle was turning the water to wine, so let's party!!" talk about extreme isegesis), in my decision to stay the heck away from the stuff. i will go into it in full detail if you are curious, but i'm sure you didn't mean to jump from politcs to religion/other here. suffice it to say that in no way am i questioning my own position on the issue. the reason it is a hot topic for me currently is because i am getting a whole lot of flack from my Christian (mostly reformed ones but a few "regular" Baptists) friends about it here in J-town; i think i've even lost a friend recently over it. i won't even go into the details, but i'll give you one example: a group needed a family to host a party...no one would volunteer their home except me. well, they wouldn't let me have it because they knew i wouldn't have alcohol there. if you ask me, that's messed up. maybe it's just J-town. anyway, back when i was getting learned, it stuck with me that modeling accounts for a scary (don't quote me on this--j you look it up) 90% of learning that occurs between parents and kids. i hope i'm not going so far as to ask if maybe you should consider why you hide this habit from your children? i do hide my sex life from my children, but i'm pretty sure i will NEVER have sex in front of my children, no matter how old/mature they get; to me the two are not exactly the same. anyway, i'm sure you don't mean to be, but condescencion does bleed through your (and some of jon's) comments to me. you know, you two are not the only people in the world who have thought about things and come to conclusions...i'm just saying is all! (3) ONCE AGAIN, i never said i was "pro-choice". there is no need to try to figure me out, though i'm flattered that you want to. you are right, everybody has his/her own heirarchy of issues which is virtually unchangable once they've come to their final conclusion. for this reason, i don't know why we even try to discuss this stuff!
Let's level. I think you're wrong about abortion (whatever your view is??). I think you're wrong about the solutions to poverty. You think I'm wrong about the solution to abortion. You also think I'm wrong about my economics of helping poor people. If me thinking I'm right and you are wrong comes across as condescending, then yes, I'm being condescending, but by that definition so are you.
It is very possible that I am being less than charitable, and I don't mind you pointing out to me specifics of where I come across that way, but saying that in general I come across as condescending, doesn't help me. Unfortunately I don't have a very good perspective on myself, since I only have strong opinions on those things which I think I'm right about. I know this is all obvious, but it is the ground of being able to have a legitimate disagreement. As far as discussion. It's important, if for no other reason than to understand one another. I may never convince you of any position that we disagree on, but it is vital that we (both me and you and the different sides in general) discuss these matters, otherwise, we become the divided states of America. Dialogue must be happening between people who differ constantly, we have a way of balancing each other out.
On abortion, you're right, I'm befuddled. You're going to have to help me. I can't figure it out. Let me try to ask it a different way:
There is a point at which you believe the government should get involved in protecting the life of a child i.e. keeping a bigger person from killing him/her. What is that point? I assume that you have reasons for why you draw the line there and would be willing to vote your conscience on the matter, and stand up for the rights of babies at that point (whatever it may be). Where is the point at which you are no longer willing to let the rights of the mother prevail? If this is an unfair question tell me so, and tell me why. I'm really just trying to understand your position.
In my mind your position is one of these below, but it may not be any of them. I'm just trying to piece it together.
Option 1- Abortion is wrong, but is here and there is nothing we can do about it. If there was a way to end it I would be for it, but I believe that ending it is impossible so it is just an evil that we will have to deal with, and that issue will not affect the way I vote. Let's call this view the "Yeah it's bad, but it's hopeless to fix." position.
Option 2- Abortion is a bad thing, but in some cases it is the lesser of two evils since the child may be born into poverty, and may die of SIDS or overlying anyway. I personally believe the child is a person, but that belief should not be legislated because I would be pushing my opinion on others. Let's call this the "I personally think it's bad, but I'm not going to press it on anyone else." position.
Option 3- Abortion is a bad thing, and can hurt women, but women have freedom to assign either personhood, or non-personhood to the biological entity that is currently completely dependent on them for survival. It is their body, and they should have rights over it and anything growing in it. Let's call this the "pro-choice" position.
I don't think believe the third option, but I put it in there just to make sure we are on the same page as to what the "pro-choice" position is.
Jon
I think I can speak for Jason on this and say that obviously we don't think we are the only ones who have opinions and think them through. That's why we are willing to dialogue and do so in a civil manner. I enjoy this very much, and think it is very important for mutual understanding, and to promote civility itself. I am always willing to come to the table of discussion and listen to the other side if possible, even and especially if we strongly disagree.
good grief, jonathan, you will argue a hind leg off a mule (a family trait, i think). nice try, but i'm not going to engage you in discussion about abortion...go find someone else!
Ashley....
First of all I have been condescending in my comments. To say that I have been aloof or patronizing in my remarks is you totally reading more into my statements than what I intend. This is why this type of commmunication is so hard. Secondly, you are the one who took the alcohol issue and made something out if it that I never intended it for. I was simply giving an example of me going against my upbringing on an issue because, through my own study and prayer, I thought the Bible was making a totally different point about it than what I had been taught. Thirdly, my intention was not to flatter (which was condescending on your part) by saying that I am trying to understand where you are coming from. I don't understand your points because to me they are vague and lack in substance. All I would like to know is do you believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible? Do you believe that the Bible is authoritative? Those are my only questions and you can answer them any way you would like.
Sorry, meant to have a question mark after that first sentence. Must have been a Freudian slip.
I left a comment on this blog which was not posted. Did I do it wrong or was it screened out? I suspect the former. I just typed it, copied the word verification and hit "submit" Clark
Uncle C,
Comment moderation is turned off currently. I'm not sure what happened.
Jon
jon, i didn't really mean that toward you--to clarify, i guess what i meant is that i feel you hold me to some different standard of conduct just because i'm a girl.
"I don't understand your points because to me they are vague and lack in substance."
what is not condescending about that? it is a nice way of saying, "you are not as smart as me" or "your thoughts are not good and mine are." i may not be nice, but at least i'm honest. i'd rather you outright say that you think i'm stupid than to put on a nice-guy front. and as for religion--sorry! you don't get to talk to me about that!
jg, one more thing: (i am trying not to respond to most of your comments so as not to open cans and cans of worms...i don't like worms; they are icky) i just have to respond to your comment on kindergarteners and sex education. okay, have you EVER been around public school kindergarteners??? well, i have, and in case you haven't in 20 or 30 years, let me inform you: things have changed. granted, i did work in the "behavioral" classrooms but there is not much difference between these children and other "regular" kindergarteners. when you hand them toy animals to play with, what to they play? oral sex, that's what. and when you ask them what they are doing, they say, "hunching." if you ask me, there is nothing these children need more than to be taught healthy, age-appropriate information about sex. unfortunate for the other "sheltered" kindergarteners like your and my kids? yes. is this job when/where i decided to go private or homeschool? UH, SHYEAH!
(side note: even though i probably won't be using public schools, i still don't mind paying taxes to pay for those who do. public schooling is great in so many ways.)
Ashley,
I'm not sure what you are referring to by saying that I hold you to a different standard of conduct, please expalin.
Thanks,
Jon
like when you said i was making comments that were "beneath me". i still don't understand what you meant. i don't see how anything i'm saying to y'all is any different that what you are saying to me, that's all.
Ashley...
I must say that I agree that some kindergarteners today know way more about "sex" than I did at their age. Heck, all 2-5 graders know more about it than I did when I was 14 or 15. And I guess that it is my distaste for public schools in general that promotes my view on this issue. Your right though, in an ideal world these things would not be an issue for children this young. My Aunt Kim like to remind me of when I was young, maybe 5 or 6, that I told her I knew what "sex" was, so she asked me what it was and I said, "1,2,3,4,5, sex (6)" True story. So yes I was a naive kid and I didn't know any better. Sadly, many of these children have been overexposed to things that are way beyond their maturity level. I understand your point, but I still don't have to like it. And I also want to say that I agree with your views on education and hope that I can get my wife to see the same thing.
Post a Comment