Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[_Pollypinks]

Oh for the love of god, just make ExxonMobile, Bank Of America, Citigroups, General Electric, Wells Fargo and the like actually pay taxes! They pay none! Now, someone posting who feels for liberals can tell me the actual truth of why we're getting screwed from the rear up. Bailed out Bank Of America $45 billion. Next year, guess how much they paid in taxes? And Head Start needs to be cut by $1 billion? What kind of morons are the lobbyists paying to be in power??

[_CaliforniaKid]

Oh for the love of god, just make ExxonMobile, Bank Of America, Citigroups, General Electric, Wells Fargo and the like actually pay taxes!

I heard the other day that Google has saved about 2 billion dollars in income taxes in the past ten years by funneling money through employee-less subsidiaries in Ireland, the Netherlands, and Bermuda. The place to start in terms of making our system truly progressive is to simplify the tax laws and close the loopholes that are exploited by the ridiculously wealthy.

[_asbestosman]

Ironically, it should be the religious people who push for equality and sharing. It should be the ideologically pure who call the existence of the super-rich inherently immoral. I find it ironic that it tends to be atheists who find the evils of the current economic system.

Mormons, especially, should be diametrically opposed to the notions as presented by Glenn Beck and the rest of those vomitous, blabbing heads. After all, it was Joseph Smith, himself, who preached the Law of Consecration. I still find myself a little shocked when people over at that other board are so vehemently right-wing.

Has humility and love for thy neighbor lost all value?

No. The Bible tells me that I personally should give my money to help the poor. I absolutely agree 100%. However, I'm having trouble finding the passage in scripture which says I should force my rich neighbor to do likewise. Perhaps someone will enlighten me there? I also thought liberals were loathe to force morals down other peoples' throats. Guess that's not the case when it comes to welfare, eh?

ETA: I do support some measure of welfare. It's not good to let children starve, or go without medical care just because their parents can't or won't pay. While I don't mind that the rich have far more wealth than I do, I do think that everyone should have a decent chance to earn the sort of living I have. Can everyone be as rich as Warren Buffett? No, and I don't care. That Buffett has more than I do does not take away from what I do have--which is enough for my needs and many of my wants.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

No. The Bible tells me that I personally should give my money to help the poor. I absolutely agree 100%. However, I'm having trouble finding the passage in scripture which says I should force my rich neighbor to do likewise. Perhaps someone will enlighten me there? I also thought liberals were loathe to force morals down other peoples' throats. Guess that's not the case when it comes to welfare, eh?

You should read about the year of Jubilee. I think it is in Leviticus. It is a biblical system of wealth redistribution much more extreme than what is advocated by even the most liberal democrat.

[_asbestosman]

You should read about the year of Jubilee. I think it is in Leviticus. It is a biblical system of wealth redistribution much more extreme than what is advocated by even the most liberal democrat.

I wouldn't mind living in the Law of Consecration if we could make it workable. I simply dislike forcing people to live that way through government when they may not share my religious views.

So no, I don't see what Jubilee has to do with forcing my rich neighbor to pay for causes I think are good--causes I believe that I am obligated to support myself.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

You should read about the year of Jubilee. I think it is in Leviticus. It is a biblical system of wealth redistribution much more extreme than what is advocated by even the most liberal democrat.

I wouldn't mind living in the Law of Consecration if we could make it workable. I simply dislike forcing people to live that way through government when they may not share my religious views.

Huh? So you would be OK with a system of redistribution that is more extreme as long as it was workable and implemented by a government with your religious views?

So no, I don't see what Jubilee has to do with forcing my rich neighbor to pay for causes I think are good--causes I believe that I am obligated to support myself.

It is about wealth redistribution. You can't get permanently richer because every 50 years you are starting out equal again. I don't think the year of Jubilee ever did work or ever will work, but the principle of wealth redistribution is definitely a biblical one and the idea of preventing large income inequalities is what is behind it.

Your rich neighbor could only accumulate greater wealth for 50 years. Then he would be forced to give up his gains to support a cause that he may not agree with. So whether you personally agree with the idea of a year of Jubilee or not is irrelevant. Your original question pertained to whether the Bible supports the idea that the rich should pay more because they are rich. Seeing how the rich are the ones who would give up the most during a year of Jubilee, biblically, yes, the Bible does support the idea of the rich paying more.

[_asbestosman]

Huh? So you would be OK with a system of redistribution that is more extreme as long as it was workable and implemented by a government with your religious views?

No. I would be fine with a more extreme system so long as everyone voluntarily entered in to it. I don't care if it's done by a government with my religious views.

It is about wealth redistribution. You can't get permanently richer because every 50 years you are starting out equal again. I don't think the year of Jubilee ever did work or ever will work, but the principle of wealth redistribution is definitely a biblical one and the idea of preventing large income inequalities is what is behind it.

Your rich neighbor could only accumulate greater wealth for 50 years. Then he would be forced to give up his gains to support a cause that he may not agree with. So whether you personally agree with the idea of a year of Jubilee or not is irrelevant. Your original question pertained to whether the Bible supports the idea that the rich should pay more because they are rich. Seeing how the rich are the ones who would give up the most during a year of Jubilee, biblically, yes, the Bible does support the idea of the rich paying more.

That's just dandy and all, but misses the distinction I'm trying to raise here. I'm fine with wealth redistribution if done voluntarily (even if implicitly by which religion/organization you choose to adhere to). The point I've been arguing is that nowhere do I read that I should force my rich, infidel neighbor to help the poor. Did Jubilee force infidels to do this as well? If so, I'll give you half a point, but only half a point. Ancient Israel was living under a theocracy. We do not, so I do not think such rules are applicable to us. Rather I think we should look to the New Testament and the words of Jesus for how to live in a more pluralistic society.

Early Christians had some communal systems, but nowhere do I see evidence that they attempted to force this upon others or indeed that Jesus thought it was the duty of government to enforce such a thing. What Jesus taught is that we personally are responsible for the poor with our individual wealth.

I'm not against all government help in the matter either. I think it makes a safer, more stable society when government provides a certain level of welfare for its citizens. I'm not even going to claim that things are good enough right now. I don't think they are. What I disagree with from the liberal side is that it's not fair that the rich are so much wealthier than we are. It's true that it's not fair, but to that I say "So what?" It doesn't take away from the life I get to live. I also don't buy the line about how as a Christian I should support such policies. Again, I see Christ's mandate to help the poor as an individual and church-wide mandate, not a political mandate to force unwilling parties.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I once thought like you Asbestosman. Thinking that capitalism and our government has no any right to determine who and how wealthy someone may get in this life.

But then I thought, what if the government IS actually determining who and how wealthy some people are getting?

A good book to read about how the deck is being stacked is: Pigs at the Trough by Arianna Huffington.

(K.G. thanks for the great book suggestion)

[_Dad of a Mormon]

That's just dandy and all, but misses the distinction I'm trying to raise here. I'm fine with wealth redistribution if done voluntarily (even if implicitly by which religion/organization you choose to adhere to). The point I've been arguing is that nowhere do I read that I should force my rich, infidel neighbor to help the poor. Did Jubilee force infidels to do this as well? If so, I'll give you half a point, but only half a point. Ancient Israel was living under a theocracy. We do not, so I do not think such rules are applicable to us. Rather I think we should look to the New Testament and the words of Jesus for how to live in a more pluralistic society.

No, it wasn't voluntary.

Early Christians had some communal systems, but nowhere do I see evidence that they attempted to force this upon others or indeed that Jesus thought it was the duty of government to enforce such a thing. What Jesus taught is that we personally are responsible for the poor with our individual wealth.

In the New Testament, there isn't much instruction about government other than to pray for leaders and submit. It says next to nothing about the proper role of government.

I'm not against all government help in the matter either. I think it makes a safer, more stable society when government provides a certain level of welfare for its citizens. I'm not even going to claim that things are good enough right now. I don't think they are. What I disagree with from the liberal side is that it's not fair that the rich are so much wealthier than we are. It's true that it's not fair, but to that I say "So what?" It doesn't take away from the life I get to live. I also don't buy the line about how as a Christian I should support such policies. Again, I see Christ's mandate to help the poor as an individual and church-wide mandate, not a political mandate to force unwilling parties.

You are misrepresenting the liberal position. Liberals generally aren't concerned with everyone being equal. What we are concerned about is that every body has opportunity, and that means an infrastructure that allows people to gain the necessary skills to contribute and to be fairly rewarded for their work. When banks get bail-outs and schools get budget cuts, something is seriously out of whack with our societal priorities.

At any rate, I see you have shifted from there is no biblical support for the rich paying more to suggesting that it doesn't matter if there is biblical support since that part of the Bible no longer applies. But if you are going to do that, then we also have to recognize that there is nothing in the New Testament (the part that DOES apply to Christians) that defines what is good governance to begin with. I think we are better off with a government that strives to provide opportunity for all.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I once thought like you Asbestosman. Thinking that capitalism and our government has no any right to determine who and how wealthy someone may get in this life.

But then I thought, what if the government IS actually determining who and how wealthy some people are getting?

A good book to read about how the deck is being stacked is: Pigs at the Trough by Arianna Huffington.

(K.G. thanks for the great book suggestion)

A previous thread with 115 posts dealt with this very subject:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16140

Some of the later comments about this subject from Droopy, Kevin and JasonB are well worth looking at.