|
Post by kyle on Oct 26, 2005 11:44:15 GMT -5
You are right about the racism thing so let's agree that I'm not advocating going after all the brothers and that I am advocating going after Americans...Legal Americans.
First of all, every child is supposed to be forced to go to school, by law, until a certain age. Solution: get cops to go door to door and force parents to get their kids to school. I don't see that happening, but that would solve that problem.
Second, kids are taught, but they may not learn. I am a former teacher and I take offense to the notion that kids aren't learning because teachers aren't teaching. My wife, 4th grade and now middle school teacher for 5 years, would be pretty upset about that as well. Jeff, you should take a little offense to that too.
I taught in suburban Edmond at the Alternative School. The PC way to explain this is that the students that go there are "at risk for not graduating". The reality is that about 25% of the kids there hated everything and didn't care about school...AT ALL. As young as they are they are still making choices. The great, or terrible, thing about making a choice is that you get to live with the consequences of your choices. I'd say about 50% of the kids there had real emotional or mild LD problems and that school was a place where they could do their work at their own pace and feel safe. Those kids made the decision that they needed to focus on school to better their situation. Mix in 25% that had long illnesses or pregnancies and missed a large part of their regular school and needed a different environment to get caught up, and you've got yourself an alternative school. Some of these kids did have well to do parents that one of them could stay home and try to care for them.
My point is that with the exception of the illnesses, these kids made decisions, just like every other kid can make decisions.
Again, I think we can agree on the problem, but how would Democrats FIX it. Blaming Republicans IS NOT going to fix anything. I try to watch some MSNBC, CNN, and of course FOXNEWS as often as I can and I get sick and tired of hearing, these days, Dems blame Rep for everything going wrong. This may be true, but if these people have no other solutions...shut up, get off the air and think up an idea...then come back and say "your way is bad...hears my idea"
Fortunately for me I've not had to listen to Rep do a whole lot of that lately but I will restate this viewpoint the next time I hear a Rep complaining with no plan in mind.
Sorry to get off on that but it's been bugging me for years!!!
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Oct 26, 2005 14:17:24 GMT -5
Kyle, you're right; we are responsible for ourselves. But I'd add that this comes with several qualifications needed to counter some of our more unfortunate nature. For starters, lumping every person into a single responsible category may gloss over many extenuating circumstances. Some are unable (e.g., the young, infirm), some are unwilling (e.g., some from radically different cultures, the addicted), some are unaware (e.g., the impaired). Secondly, we are not fully responsible even for our makeup as individuals--that is to say that both genetics and the environment play a large role in making us who we are--let alone what we do with ourselves. Thirdly, although we each share the same physical world, our social environments can be greater than most of us are willing to admit. I.e., the world of, say, a Diné youth growing up in a hogaan is so different from that of the mainstream America into which she may find herself, that she may never be able to behave in a manner comparable to yours or mine. This is a radical example, but we need not go that far to find other demonstrations of the applicability of this observation. Fourth, our society is divided between those who would help and those who would not help (or who would hinder) their fellow humans. Ask folks at random if people are basically good or basically bad, and I think you'll be astounded at how many you'll find answering in the negative. This is compounded by our society's primary emphasis on wealth and individuality, and persistent qualities of biggotry and prejudice. These divided and self-interested social attitudes do not foster a level playing field. This makes for a country that vastly favors the middle to upper classes of certain ethnic origins, perdominantly healthy males (don't get me wrong, I know that poor Anglo women have one of the hardest rows to hoe, a fact borne out by their overwhelming assistance numbers). It would be naive to think otherwise (I'm not suggesting that you do think this way, I'm just saying that it would be naive to not face this fact). Lastly, when you say that we are responsible for ourselves, I get the impression you are talking exclusively from an individual basis. I wouldn't. My social focus has never been on the individual but the group. We humans are responsible for ourselves. You can tone this down if you like, but I think it leads to increased biggotry as the focus grows smaller, especially if the word 'only' gets added at some point in the reduction: We Americans are responsible for ourselves. We (insert ethnic origin, socio-economic class, religious background, etc.) people are responsible for ourselves. I am only responsible for myself. I would in fact suggest expanding the scope, not contracting it. We are responsible ourselves and for all others. We are responsible for this planet. Only we are responsible. In this, I find that we are faced with the challenges of not only treating the symptoms of social injustice, but we are committed to radical extraction of the cause. Like Jesus says in the Sermon, if the right hand offends, cut it off. So, if emphasis on individual prosperity are the cause of this ill, we MUST get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 27, 2005 9:28:42 GMT -5
Over the years, but moreso recently (or so it seems), the Republican party has been touted as the party of faith and moral values, specifically Christian values. However, I do NOT see this reflected in Republican decisions and policy. I do not see concern for the poor in their solution to cut funding for the very programs that help support the poor. I do not see adequate stewardship in their environmental policies. Hence the original question: How are the teachings of Christ compatible with Republican ideology?
Whether the Democrats can handle to problems better is not my concern in this particular discussion. My concern is the association of the Republican party with Christianity, because frankly I feel the Republicans and the Christian Right are misreprenting the faith.
Let's try it this way, how is the Republican party demonstrating love for their neighbor? How do they show mercy? How are they treating the least, the poor, the oppressed? How are they taking care of the earth? How are they peacemakers?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 27, 2005 10:39:37 GMT -5
Keep pushing Amanda! I don't think there is any good answer. The republican platform appeals to a faith based on fear, fear that we are sinning in some way against God. And the two big issues that I hear again and again are abortion and gay rights. I would say cutting aid to the poor is worse, from the standpoint of Christian values, than allowing both first trimester abortions and civil unions. So keep pushing until you get an answer that satisfies you.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Oct 27, 2005 10:55:05 GMT -5
I've given as much rationale for how Republicans are trying to help people and why it is OK to stop helping. After trying to explain this many times I can come to a pretty simple conclusion: Any Republican way of doing anything is wrong...whatever Democrats want to do is right.
Did I hit the nail on the head with that one or what?
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 27, 2005 11:21:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure he meant that...
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 27, 2005 11:34:28 GMT -5
That's just insulting, Kyle! I listen to Republican ideas all the time. Heck, Bill Clinton got the dems to accept a host of republican ideas. I think free markets are useful tools, but they are not panaceas! I agree that welfare should be tied to (meaningful) work, but I am opposed in policies that limit the number of years a person can be on welfare. I agree that education in this country needs a lot of work, but No Child Left Behind is an idiotic attempt to fix the problems, as it focuses way too much on outcomes.
There are things the Republicans are just wrong about: Affirmative Action Capital Punishment Abortion Gay Rights The War in Iraq
Jeff
PS And as much as I enjoy reading your posts, I don't think you've come close to establishing any of your central points. At least nothing to my satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 27, 2005 11:50:21 GMT -5
Republicans are trying to help people and it is OK to stop helping. Couldn't be the same people now could it...
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Oct 27, 2005 12:01:37 GMT -5
You know what, after reading my last post , the first sentence doesn't really make sense to me so I'll try that again.
I've given the best reasoning for thinking the way I do about helping and not helping. As you talked about earlier Jeff, and I agree, it does come down to interpretation. If we can't agree on the interpretation, we can't agree on who's way is best.
Any Republican way of doing anything is wrong...whatever Democrats want to do is right. In my opinion, this is about 25% truth and 75% jest. Unfortunately, there are people that get to make decision out there that are probably more like 90% truth and 10% jest...on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 27, 2005 14:28:18 GMT -5
Kyle,
Okay, so we are agreed about the interpretation thing. Great! Since the issues we are considering are matters of life and death, we owe it to those who might suffer from our ideas to decide which interpretation is best. If we just throw in the towel, it would mean that we don’t really care enough about matters of great importance.
Until we do reach a decision on interpretation, how should we be voting and speaking? I would suggest that Hippocrates has a nice rule, “First, do no harm,” i.e., we should err on the side of caution by supporting policies that aid the least fortunate among us in the most direct way possible. Shouldn’t this be the default position? If at a later time we discover that the free market really is the best way to help the poor on a large scale, then we can change our social policy—though we would still want to be as supportive and helpful in our individual actions as we could. Right?
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Oct 27, 2005 15:58:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 27, 2005 16:24:02 GMT -5
I'm going to put my Republican hat on. It's something all us suburban white-kids have that we don't like to mention when we try to fit in later on in life. I'm not saying I believe any of this, but there are good arguments to be made from the Republican side.
Jeff is right, it's all about limited resources. If you guys haven't noticed, 1/5 of the world is currently in China and they've got us beat hands down in the working poor department. It would be nice if the world had enough bounty to provide everything for everyone, but that is simply not the case. We are fighting a war against every other country in the world to maintain our status as the most well-off country. We have to support those places within our society that result in us being competitive on the global market. If other countries stop purchasing what we have to sell, then our country would collapse within the month. If we give money to the poor, that supports our grocery stores, our low-end housing market, and Chinese textiles. What we have to support is our rich. If we give tax breaks to our rich, they invest in our companies and, if they spend the money, they support the luxuries that our country produces, which are all very coveted in foreign markets. What do we have that other countries cannot supply? Military might, business management, technical knowledge, education. If we don't maintain our position, then we'll have no say in shaping the world to come. We won't be able to influence the policies of other countries.
We're trying to help the greatest number of people. The future peoples of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 28, 2005 2:16:30 GMT -5
Hey Tyler! Thanks for thinking like a Republican for us, but I think what you’ve done is show why this particular line of thought is bankrupt. Scarcity was and is a motivator for all mankind. But today, food is not a scarce commodity ( www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/foodashumrgt/special.htm ). We have enough food to feed everyone in the world, and, barring catastrophe, we know how to do it until the sun goes super-nova. Heck, if we really wanted to we could make enough to provide fuel for combustion engines for everyone too ( www.ethanol.org/ , www.greasecar.com ). We have an abundance of food; that’s why we are so fat. But still people starve, even here in the US. Why? Because we are not committed to helping them, or rather we are more committed to other things. We could cure the world of many diseases, e.g., TB ( www.aeras.org ). There is no reason any child in Africa should ever die of this disease. The vaccine costs about $10, so we could save two million lives a year for about the same price that we pay for another Burger King in a nameless suburb somewhere in the US. But we don’t do it. Why? Because we don’t want to, not really, anyway. For a great many issues the problem is no longer scarcity. It’s the will to do good, to make the world a better place, to help people. We lack a firm commitment to this, and many of us, including a lot of deluded Christians, are positively working against it. A few other points: 1. Not even the republicans would want a Chinese system of government over here. Sure you can get the poor to work, if you are willing to starve them, deprive them of medical care, and force them to live in squalor. 2. I am not asking the US to be all things to all people. But I would like to see us at least clean up our act in our own backyard. I find our affluence disgusting when most of the population of the world is dying slowly of hunger. But I don’t expect any one else to feel that way. I do expect Americans to be concerned about American poverty. Poverty in the richest country in the world, the richest the world has ever known, is worse than disgusting. I work in the second poorest county in the US—by the 2000 census. And I can tell you stories. But I won’t. We should be moved by our own; Americans who aren’t need a sledgehammer as a wake up call. 3. There are lots ways to maintain American status. But the bottom line is helping the rest of the world is pretty good one. We could do a lot more without really hurting ourselves at all. But we don’t. 4. We do not give money to the poor to make us into a powerful nation. We do it because they are poor and we should help them. In the end, we have to ask what kind of society is worth leaving to our children. I want to see America strong and proud. But more and more I see us insular and greedy. The kind of society worth giving to the future is sustainable, compassionate, rational, spiritual, brave, hopeful, creative, etc… But we spend almost no effort thinking about how to create this society for our children. If we lived in the Douglas Adam’s universe, we’d be mining the future right now, screwing our great-grandchildren. Heck, we already are. Anyway, I hope that you all know that I am not at all allergic to conservative ideas. I think I am much more conservative than many of you. It’s just that a lot of conservative ideas are really attempts to preserve the status quo. And it has never been very fair. It should affect us to see ignored all the good that could be almost effortlessly done. If only we wished to do it… Concerning the basic requirements for human life, at this point in world history the issue is not scarcity but commitment. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by amanda mcbride on Oct 28, 2005 22:13:02 GMT -5
Kyle, I can easily find much more support in scripture for helping than not:
1 John 3:17 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?
Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially those who are of the household of faith.
Phillipians 2:3 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests but also for the interests of others.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
James 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daaily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
Acts 20:35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Oct 29, 2005 8:22:15 GMT -5
Remember Amanda that the the scriptures and the bible was written to believers for training the believers. These things of taking care of one another and carring their burdens is ment as a way to physically show ones faith so it's not just a much of empty words.
I can claim to be a christian all day long even go to church and study my bible, but unless I apply what I'm studing then only God and I know if I really am a believer (like a christian in hiding). Our works is what the world sees, now on the other hand just cause you have good works doesn't mean that your a christian either. Cause it is not by works that you get to God it is after all by faith in his son as your saviour. Other wise it wouldn't be a gift but instead a wage that you earn.
I do agree those that go around shouting they are christians and then are not applying what the good book instructs us to do are giving the rest of christianity a black eye. It gives people like Tyler all the right in the world to bad mouth christians and for that matter religion in general.
Much like how the nazi party have influenced many people's views about Germans as a whole. I have a good friend that is a German and loves america. One day when she was in her front yard working on her flowerbed a boy maybe 10 or 12 (not sure) called her a nazi then rode off on his bike. She and I both realize that what the nazi's did will live with the German people for ever, it is the cross they must bear even if unfairly.
So the same for the christians you have groups and people using the name for their own agendas. There may be some true believers in those groups that try to do the right thing but are out voted or maybe the true believers have chosen not to live as believes and instead are living as the world. In the end only You and God knows if your a believer or not, if you realy want the world to know you have to walk the walk not just talk the talk and then don't be surprised when the world attacks you for it, cause that is what jesus told us " If the hate me then they will also hate you" so as a christian don't act all surprise when the world turns against you for saying what you are and then when you begin practicing what you beleive.
I'm not for sure on this but it would seem that the Repulican party may have ment well long ago, but since then they have hijacked the term chirstian and use it to make their platform look more moral. Thus people either attach them selves to the repulican party because they think that will make them more of a christian or it gives others the excuse to pu pu christianity cause of the actions of the repulicans as a whole.
I do beleive both partys have do much good and have done just as much selfserving at the same time. The ol absolute Power corrupts seems to come to mind.
I really wanted to see the Repulicans completly in charge so that I could see and the world if all the winning they have been doing about how the democrats have failed the county are true. Well Yes the Repubicans have done some good, but it is so over shadowed by the mistakes that it's like putting a bandate on a gapping wound.
Now I would really like to see what the Democrats can do if they are in complete control. This really is the only way for us to see if they really can do a better job and I say more power to them, please give them 8 years strait to do their best or worst what ever may come.
I think what we will see is that both parties though meaning well, will fail but not with out doing some good in the process, but in the end they will fail.
I do believe in the saying "United we stand Devided we fall" after all there is no I in TEAM WORK. I know we can't change the world, but if we could just make it work here in the USA, then and only then can we truely offer something of use to the rest of the world. The light house on the hill concept, and example of what good can be truely accomplished.
Just a side note: the gun control laws that are in place, much like any of the laws that are in place can and do work when we actually use them. Creating more when your not using what you have is just meaningless paper work and wasted time.
Example if the law sayes it's wrong for me to kick the shit out of another person and say that person dies because of it. I'm guilty of murder or untill a sleasy Lawer gets me off. So if we can't make that law work then why do we need to make extra laws for say hate crimes as if beating that person up wasn't a good enough offense to land my sorry butt in jail in the first place and then when they died put me away or maybe the death penalty.
Sorry this is truely off the subject at hand, just something that has alway bothered me do to my lack of understanding on the subject. Rebulicans and Democrats seem to be equally stupid on this subject as far as I can tell.
Time for a third party the TYLER party!!!!!!!!!!!! With Jeff as the Vice press and Rick as National Security.
Who knows they just might make it work.
talk soon guys. PS: has anyone aside from Jeff, Justin and Rick read the Demons in a bottle, if so I'd be interested in any comments that you may have. Just a promo for my folder.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Oct 29, 2005 11:28:34 GMT -5
Time for a third party the TYLER party!!!!!!!!!!!! With Jeff as the Vice press and Rick as National Security. Who knows they just might make it work. Actually, this was where I thought the "NPR Story on Non-Profit..." thread was leading. I never suggested it, as I doubt many of us democratic lifers would ever see the wisdom in abandoning our rat-infested, leaky old ironsides party for a much smaller liferaft, especially when so many of those rafts sink. But I personally have no particular love for the donkey these days. I so wish it would get its act together.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 1, 2005 13:04:51 GMT -5
Here is another example of a low-cost health solution that would save lots of lives if we were committed to doing so: ( www.slate.com/id/2129213/ ) Excerpted: "Peanuts: Preventing them from molding—and preventing liver cancer State of the Science: Liver cancer is a common and serious problem in parts of Africa where people eat a lot of peanuts and corn stored under hot and humid conditions. A common mold (Aspergillus flavus) that grows on peanuts and corn produces aflatoxin, a cancer-causing toxin. Aflatoxin contamination is not a problem in the United States because production, storage, and inspection standards are routinely high. In Africa, however, aflatoxin from the mold is almost certainly the explanation for the high rate of liver cancer (hepatitis B plays a role, too). Though there are some experimental methods for eliminating aflatoxin from foods—exposure to ammonia may work—none are practical for farmers in the developing world. Prognosis: Now a study by P.C. Turner and colleagues, mostly working at the University of Leeds in England, has shown that low-cost, low-tech interventions can significantly lower the aflatoxin contamination of African staple foods. The fixes: using the sun to fully dry peanuts laid out on fiber mats (instead of an earthen floor); sorting the dried nuts and discarding moldy or damaged ones and then storing the good ones in natural fiber bags (instead of plastic). The most expensive suggestion was to raise the stored peanuts with $10 wooden pallets and to sprinkle a little locally made insecticide underneath. The total cost for all the interventions is about $50 per household for the first year and less in subsequent years since most of the supplies can be reused. It's worth noting, though, that the annual per capita gross national product is only about $1,100 in Guinea, where the experiment was performed. Benefits: It's hard to imagine a more cost-effective intervention. Farmers will become healthier and more productive; their children will be protected from the growth-retarding effects of aflatoxin; their animals will fare better, improving the protein available in the food supply; and fewer resources will be needed to care for the sick. Not glamorous, but awfully worthwhile."
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Nov 1, 2005 18:57:39 GMT -5
Stem cell research could cure all disease, all aging, all birth-defects, all but the most grievous of injuries. There's also the $10 per unit polio vaccine. There's the pay the extra .10 per kilowatt hour to prevent the drastic famine and drought that global warming's goin to cause. Right now people are able to pay less for a vehicle that will cost them less in the long run, and will need less repairs, but they still buy SUV's. You can't give the goodness away.
If you could put a plate on sale at walmart that cost $10 that would drop their electrical bill by $11 a month, they might buy it. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 5, 2005 10:58:50 GMT -5
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Suck on it, Melchesedek.
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Nov 11, 2005 7:20:58 GMT -5
Not sure what your trying to say here Chris, but I'm sure it's some kind of slight against christianity. Please correct me if I wrong. Thanks Tyler the big word in your coment about the mirical of stemcell researce is could not a diffinate will cure. I don't have a problem with the using of stem cells, just how they have to obtain them at this time, because I believe that human life starts right at the moment of conception. I believe that God made may natural cures for diseases that have just not been discovered yet, but man kind is a poor steward of this world and the desire for the almighty dollar has driven us to make it or making it a barren world one day, untill God steps in and stops us. I have never agreed with the animal testing, even if it has gathered quick and fast results for science and medicine, again bad stewards to torcure animals or destroy the enviroment for the supposed greater good. Does this mean we should throw this info out, no, it means that we should have taken a different path. Sometimes the short cut isn't the best path espesially when you look back up on all the suffering it has caused. As for the Chrsitanity vs Republicans, well I think the Repulicans talk a good talk sometimes, but in the end can't seem to walk the walk. Maybe it has something to do with to much power and corruption as such, I really don't know, and this could be the same problem with the Democrats they mean well, but they have problems with the follow through also. If the too partys really did want to help the people for the greater good maybe we would be haveing such debates, instead our only disagreances would just be over hair splitting cause the big stuff would be being taken care of. As for the stemcell info, I'm still very interested in it's research. Just cause I'm a Christain and a literal bible believer doesn't mean that I'm aposed to science or medical advancements or research. The only problem I have with evolution and I will point out the two types. Here is the website I picked this up from: www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml1 Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. 2 Macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. This is an article that I haven't got to read yet. My point is I do believe in Micro-evolution and the bible doesn't disagree with it, but as for Macro-evolution I and the bible do disagree. This doesn't make me foolish unless you really do believe that way. As far as I can see you have to have as much if not more faith to believe in Macrco-evolution as I do to believe in the bible and Jesus. Not sure if there is another topic already started where this last part of my comment would be better suited, if so please let me know and I'll move it over there so as not to derail this topic. Still not sure if I've answered your original question Amanda or if I've done it in a round about way? I'll see if I can pull up some info on the Repulican platform so that I can give you a more precise answer instead of walking around it. Sorry, I truely wish to know this answer more clearly for myself also. Thanks for asking it.
|
|