Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Alternative Views - Click Here to Start New Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-21-2017, 05:37 AM   #1
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default American Conservatism and the Bible

American Conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from perceived threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism, and liberal internationalism. Liberty is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider individual liberty, within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice.

Socialism social ownership of the means of production

Moral Relativism we should tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree with the morality of it.

Multiculturalism salad bowl, cultural mosaic.

Liberal Internationalism liberal states should intervene in other states to pursue liberal objectives.

How do you balance your value of equality and social justice with all of these other values (Judeo Christian, economic liberalism and free market).

What is the point in discussing Politics and the Bible if we don't really get down to the nitty gritty like policy.

I think the NT speaks clearly concerning "socialism -- social ownership of the means of production", Moral Relativism, Multiculturalism, Liberal internationalism, equality and social justice. So then this may be a swamp, but we can possess all the land that the soles of our feet walk on, or in this case wade through.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 05:59 AM   #2
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

So the main reference to communism from the Bible is in the NT where it says that the early church "had all things in common". However, anything more than a cursory reading of this section will prove that the NT had a great respect for personal property and never crossed the line. Peter makes it very clear that the gift was in his power to do with as he wished. He wasn't required to give it to the church, nor if he chose to give something was he required to give all of it. If you truly respect personal property then that must include respecting the right of someone to give their property as a gift. So then, even in the one portion of the NT that seems to be most favorable towards "social ownership of the means of production" it is very clear that this is not a rule and that the NT rule is that individuals have the right and authority to make the decisions concerning their own property.

So on this point I would have to agree that the Bible and the Apostles were conservatives according to American conservatism.

Of course another major argument made for communism by Marx is that it is more egalitarian (equal? fair?) and that it promotes civil rights of the worker. The Bible and NT are very concerned with issues of equality and rights, but on this one the balance is between this section and the one with Saint Stephen. Here the right belongs to the owner of the property. Yes, there are poor, but that is why the church selected deacons to register and care for "widows who are widows indeed". There are many examples of Paul and others taking up a collection for the care of those who were poor or going through hardship. Yet in none of these do they advocate the church owning the means of production. Rather, they want these offerings to be "love offerings".

Love, care and charity are critical ingredients to a successful society. The overthrow of the rich and the seizing of their property is a response to a lack of love and an abusive relationship between rich and poor.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 06:23 AM   #3
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,524
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Keep working on your case bro ZNP. Add citations to your claims.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:53 AM   #4
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Moral relativism -- we should tolerate the behavior of others even though we disagree with the morality of it.

This sounds very much like what Paul told the Corinthians when he said that although he condemns fornication he didn't mean fornication among those in the world because then you would need to go out from the world.

On this point I would have to say that although the Bible has very clear moral guidelines, it also teaches you to tolerate those who are behaving in a way you disagree with.

So on this point the Bible disagrees with American Conservatism.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:56 AM   #5
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,524
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
This sounds very much like what Paul told the Corinthians when he said that although he condemns fornication he didn't mean fornication among those in the world because then you would need to go out from the world.
Since the rest of your post hangs on this please clarify.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 10:13 AM   #6
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Since the rest of your post hangs on this please clarify.
1Cor5:9 I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; 10 not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: 11 but [f]as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

It is quite plain in this chapter that Paul considers fornication immoral and a sin that cannot be tolerated in the church. That said he also makes it clear that we are to tolerate fornicators in the world, because if we didn't we would have to go out of the world, and Jesus has given us a clear mandate to go into the world.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 11:33 AM   #7
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,524
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
1Cor5:9 I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; 10 not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: 11 but [f]as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. 12 For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

It is quite plain in this chapter that Paul considers fornication immoral and a sin that cannot be tolerated in the church. That said he also makes it clear that we are to tolerate fornicators in the world, because if we didn't we would have to go out of the world, and Jesus has given us a clear mandate to go into the world.
Got it. Thanks. Good point. But I can't help but think other than that, Paul still had some Hebrew -- Pharisee of Pharisees -- sloshing around in him, and still thought like the Pharisees thought about exclusivity. He creates a us and them, when we know that "the veil of the temple was rent in twain" opening the Holy of Holies to all :

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom(Sophia) is justified of her children.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 12:08 PM   #8
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Got it. Thanks. Good point. But I can't help but think other than that, Paul still had some Hebrew -- Pharisee of Pharisees -- sloshing around in him, and still thought like the Pharisees thought about exclusivity. He creates a us and them, when we know that "the veil of the temple was rent in twain" opening the Holy of Holies to all :

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom(Sophia) is justified of her children.
In 1Cor 5 he makes it very clear saying "what have I to do judging them that are without". He was an apostle, like Peter, and they were known to lay down some very strict judgements, but not on those who are without. We have not been given any authority to judge the unbelievers, however we do have authority to judge sin, and the government has the authority to judge criminal behavior that violates the law.

Once again Pinker has tripped up in dismissing OT law as being less moral than our present law. On the issue of rape he finds fault with the OT because this crime is viewed as a crime against the father or husband or brother. He points out that today we see this as a crime against the woman's will. Yet he also points out that since 1980 when DNA was first used to solve rape crimes the number of rapes has dropped a precipitous 80%. That is an astronomical amount. Why? Several good reasons, first DNA allows us to arrest the guilty party with 99.99% certainty, as a result we remove rapists from society. If a man in time past raped 5-10 women and now we catch and convict him after the first or second it is easy to explain the 80% drop. Second, women are much more likely to come forward now that they can prove the charge.

Imagine in time past, no DNA, what is the woman going to do? it is her word against his. What proof does she have? When she was raped a few people found out, her husband, father, brother. If she goes to trial the entire town finds out and it is very unlikely she'll get a conviction. How is she going to prove she was raped, does she now have to suffer the indignity of the priest examining her? Also there is no prison, the penalty for this crime is always going to be a price to pay or death. Those are your two options. She now shows up in court, she will claim that she was raped, what will the defendant say? He is going to claim she was a slut, it was consensual, she was a liar, etc. This is why prior to DNA few women came forward. But, if the husband or father or brother takes the rapist to court what is he going to say, "your wife is a slut"? "Your sister is a slut"? This is a completely different trial and the men are going to have a very different attitude. Besides, the husband, father and brother will be key witnesses in such a trial. Pinker admits that few women came forward prior to DNA, he understands why they did, and yet he doesn't understand the wisdom in making this a crime against the husband, father or brother. If you made it a crime against the woman based on the state of forensics 4,000 years ago then the trial would be a second crime against the woman and it would be worse than the first. Pinker should learn from Paul, what does he have to do with judging those in the church? He should focus on the world.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 05:12 PM   #9
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,976
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

The bible disagrees with human government, period (since humans assembled themselves together against God, under Nimrod). The bible supports an autocratic theocracy, where only God would be President. The existing human governments are only a temporary measure to keep law and order in the absence of God's ruling, but will be done away with when Christ returns.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 05:29 PM   #10
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

The church is the example of "multiculturalism" on one hand, in that we have Jews, Greeks, Sythians, etc. However, the model is to put to death the things that divide us and embrace the things that make us one. So this would be another point on which American conservatism differs with the Bible.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 04:58 AM   #11
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Liberal Internationalism -- This is a very thorny issue because on one side you can argue this is charity, this is love, this is "the gospel being spread throughout the entire world". All things the NT supports.

However, we have come to learn that the "charity" is really bondage. Those who have really studied the issue of poor nations mired in disfunction find that the western style of aid is a major component of what keeps them mired. For example, all of those clothes bins where you give away clothes that you no longer wear, most of those are shipped to 3rd world nations and given away for free. As a result it is impossible for them to develop a textile industry for themselves. The same is true when we give food as aid. Our aid is really "dumping" and it is devastating to local economies. Finally we have given them loans from the US to the country. Big loans that pay for palaces and corrupt dictators who will understand where their bread is buttered. That is not charity, that is influence peddling. Jesus said that when you have a feast you should invite those who cannot pay you back, not those who you are expecting to pay you back. Our "liberal internationalism" is simply scratching their backs with the expectation that they will scratch our back. What does work are the micro loans, not to the dictators but to the individual peasants. So although it is argued that they are being charitable, the reality is they are enabling bad behavior or preventing people from turning their life around. That is not love.

As for "the gospel being spread". You cannot argue that a country that does things clearly condemned by the NT on one hand (see previous post on tolerating immoral behavior) is now "spreading the gospel" on the other. We prop up the dictator with our disingenuous form of charity and then these propped up dictators have to do all kinds of human rights violations to stay in power, we have to condemn them as though we had nothing to do with it, and push them towards democracy in a cart before the horse approach. If you start with the micro loans and build up the middle class, then you can build schools with charitable donations and move towards a democracy in an organic way.

So the appropriate response for these countries that are waste cases is "rise, take up your bed and walk". They don't want us to throw a bone to their dictator, what they want is to "eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table", the "micro loans".
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 05:37 AM   #12
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,094
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Conservatives tend to maintain a sexist power hierarchy in which men are above women much like Paul preached to the Corinthians when he taught:

Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 05:59 AM   #13
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Conservatives tend to maintain a sexist power hierarchy in which men are above women much like Paul preached to the Corinthians when he taught:
Based on the definition I will say that this allegation would fall under they support "American Traditions" and "Judeao Christian values" part of the definition on Post #1.

In my reading of the NT the Apostle Paul was by far the most progressive writer concerning equality for the sexes. Both Jesus and Paul advised against marriage, if possible. So I disagree that the NT supports a "sexist power hierarchy".

The NT does say that elders must be husbands of one wife. People assume this supports a "sexist power hierarchy" but I disagree.

1. Based on this rule you not only have a "pastor" but you also have a "pastor's wife".

2. Paul made it clear that the elder women were to teach the younger women, just as the elder men were to teach the elder men.

3. Churches as a rule are two thirds women. If you didn't have men in prominent positions the church would be completely overrun with women and be closer to 90% which is what happens when you have women in all the leadership positions.

4. One of the major issues in a church is broken or dysfunctional families. Paul made it a requirement that the elder, a person who is selected as an example to the rest, is someone running a family in a good order.

The feminist movement has pushed many inaccuracies and half truths on the public. For example, "violence against women". They will present data on a yearly basis on rape or some other issue. What they don't show you is that over the last 30 years this violence against women has dropped precipitously. An 80% drop in rape is astounding. So instead of trumpeting the success of the campaign they continue to make it sound like this is an epidemic.

They hide or cover up the very real "violence against men". As a rule domestic violence is 50/50 with both men and women being the perpetrators on an equal basis, yet few if any realize that. Also, in domestic violence the man beats the wife, the wife kills the husband. So it is very biased to lump it all together as "domestic violence".

Do you realize that the groups that talk to women on campuses concerning rape will not advise the women to avoid getting drunk, they won't advise the woman against taking her clothes off, and they won't advise against her getting into bed with a man. Their reasoning is that "rape is never the woman's fault". So this concept taken to its logical extreme is idiotic. What is called rape today is really a woman waking up from a hangover and regretting the pictures she sees on Facebook. Also, don't forget the Duke Lacrosse team if we are going to ignore the fact that an easy out for a woman who has made some terrible choices is to cry "rape". In that case the woman was a call girl, she wound up being picked up drunk and incoherent, the police realized she had left her child home alone for close to 14 hours and ACS was going to take the child, hence it was "rape".

In truth there are countries where rape is still a major issue and that support a sexist power hierarchy. But it is not America, nor is it any country holding to Judaeo Christian values.

Therefore I disagree that American conservatism maintains a sexist power hierarchy.

Now you quoted 1Cor 11:3 but neglected to quote the conclusion of this portion:

1Cor 11:16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God

We are very clearly told that this portion of the scripture is not to be used in a contentious setting like political policy. Zeek you are acting very badly.

The context of this discussion is political policy of American Conservatives and how it corresponds to the Bible. Clearly the verse quoted was quoted out of context and misapplied. Bad, very bad.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 07:37 AM   #14
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,094
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Based on the definition I will say that this allegation would fall under they support "American Traditions" and "Judeao Christian values" part of the definition on Post #1.

In my reading of the NT the Apostle Paul was by far the most progressive writer concerning equality for the sexes. Both Jesus and Paul advised against marriage, if possible. So I disagree that the NT supports a "sexist power hierarchy".

The NT does say that elders must be husbands of one wife. People assume this supports a "sexist power hierarchy" but I disagree.

1. Based on this rule you not only have a "pastor" but you also have a "pastor's wife".

2. Paul made it clear that the elder women were to teach the younger women, just as the elder men were to teach the elder men.

3. Churches as a rule are two thirds women. If you didn't have men in prominent positions the church would be completely overrun with women and be closer to 90% which is what happens when you have women in all the leadership positions.

4. One of the major issues in a church is broken or dysfunctional families. Paul made it a requirement that the elder, a person who is selected as an example to the rest, is someone running a family in a good order.

The feminist movement has pushed many inaccuracies and half truths on the public. For example, "violence against women". They will present data on a yearly basis on rape or some other issue. What they don't show you is that over the last 30 years this violence against women has dropped precipitously. An 80% drop in rape is astounding. So instead of trumpeting the success of the campaign they continue to make it sound like this is an epidemic.

They hide or cover up the very real "violence against men". As a rule domestic violence is 50/50 with both men and women being the perpetrators on an equal basis, yet few if any realize that. Also, in domestic violence the man beats the wife, the wife kills the husband. So it is very biased to lump it all together as "domestic violence".

Do you realize that the groups that talk to women on campuses concerning rape will not advise the women to avoid getting drunk, they won't advise the woman against taking her clothes off, and they won't advise against her getting into bed with a man. Their reasoning is that "rape is never the woman's fault". So this concept taken to its logical extreme is idiotic. What is called rape today is really a woman waking up from a hangover and regretting the pictures she sees on Facebook. Also, don't forget the Duke Lacrosse team if we are going to ignore the fact that an easy out for a woman who has made some terrible choices is to cry "rape". In that case the woman was a call girl, she wound up being picked up drunk and incoherent, the police realized she had left her child home alone for close to 14 hours and ACS was going to take the child, hence it was "rape".

In truth there are countries where rape is still a major issue and that support a sexist power hierarchy. But it is not America, nor is it any country holding to Judaeo Christian values.

Therefore I disagree that American conservatism maintains a sexist power hierarchy.

Now you quoted 1Cor 11:3 but neglected to quote the conclusion of this portion:

1Cor 11:16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God

We are very clearly told that this portion of the scripture is not to be used in a contentious setting like political policy. Zeek you are acting very badly.

The context of this discussion is political policy of American Conservatives and how it corresponds to the Bible. Clearly the verse quoted was quoted out of context and misapplied. Bad, very bad.
What you project to be "American conservativism" appears to be no more or less than your own values and beliefs. You just affirmed the verses I cited which declare that the man is superior to the woman. I think it's pretty funny that you claim I'm "acting very badly" just because I disagree with you.

So, according to you, the "head of the woman" is only man inside the church, but not outside it and woman is only "from man" in the church but not outside it? If so, it seems there are different ultimate truths depending on whether one is inside or outside the church. How is that possible?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 09:06 AM   #15
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,524
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Conservatives tend to maintain a sexist power hierarchy in which men are above women much like Paul preached to the Corinthians when he taught:

Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
I've met at very conservative churches that take this very serious. They add 1Co_14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches.

And taught that if a women needed to learn something, let her go to her husband, and that the husband is her covering.

Once in Sunday School class I said something that provoked a women to speak up. After she spoke the Preacher, that was the teacher, announced to everyone that he provided covering for her ; to prevent everyone from getting angry that he let her speak.

All I can say to all of this women bashing and subjugating, to make sense of it, is : The Bible was written during highly patriarchal times.

And conservatives want to keep it that way.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 09:23 AM   #16
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,094
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I've met at very conservative churches that take this very serious. They add 1Co_14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches.

And taught that if a women needed to learn something, let her go to her husband, and that the husband is her covering.

Once in Sunday School class I said something that provoked a women to speak up. After she spoke the Preacher, that was the teacher, announced to everyone that he provided covering for her ; to prevent everyone from getting angry that he let her speak.

All I can say to all of this women bashing and subjugating, to make sense of it, is : The Bible was written during highly patriarchal times.

And conservatives want to keep it that way.
So it seems. If the order of the church is the the same as the order the Kingdom of God, then the principle that "the head of woman is man" is the principle of the Kingdom of God. If that's so, then I suppose the subjugation of women would be an eternal principle.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 10:30 AM   #17
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
What you project to be "American conservativism" appears to be no more or less than your own values and beliefs. You just affirmed the verses I cited which declare that the man is superior to the woman. I think it's pretty funny that you claim I'm "acting very badly" just because I disagree with you.

So, according to you, the "head of the woman" is only man inside the church, but not outside it and woman is only "from man" in the church but not outside it? If so, it seems there are different ultimate truths depending on whether one is inside or outside the church. How is that possible?
According to me and Paul and the NT any Christian claiming to have a "Biblical perspective" on their political philosophy would not claim anything of the sort. We don't have this tradition or practice in telling the world that a man is the head of a woman. If our political perspective is based on the NT then men and women are equal, just as Paul said "there is no male or female"

This thread is not about the Christian religion, or the Christian church. It is about the political belief of "American Conservatism" and how that corresponds with the Bible.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 10:34 AM   #18
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I've met at very conservative churches that take this very serious. They add 1Co_14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches.

And taught that if a women needed to learn something, let her go to her husband, and that the husband is her covering.

Once in Sunday School class I said something that provoked a women to speak up. After she spoke the Preacher, that was the teacher, announced to everyone that he provided covering for her ; to prevent everyone from getting angry that he let her speak.

All I can say to all of this women bashing and subjugating, to make sense of it, is : The Bible was written during highly patriarchal times.

And conservatives want to keep it that way.
These are two different issues. There are practices in the church and there are practices in politics which involve the unbelievers. The NT is very clear that we should not make this a teaching to anyone who wants to be contentious. If you saw any of yesterdays hearing on SCOTUS it is very clear that when it comes to politics everyone wants to be contentious.

I do not have an issue with a church who takes the words "to love your wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" very literally. In that case if they also want to teach that the head of the woman is the man, fine.

But I have a very big problem where you have unbelievers, sinners, those who have never repented, confessed or in any way dealing with their sinful life thinking that they are the head of the woman. Jesus died so that we could be free from the bondage of sin, He is not going to now shackle a woman to a sinful man. I also have a very big problem with people who take verses from the Bible out of context, and applying "the head of every woman is the man" to the political arena is very clearly out of context.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 10:52 AM   #19
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,094
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
According to me and Paul and the NT any Christian claiming to have a "Biblical perspective" on their political philosophy would not claim anything of the sort. We don't have this tradition or practice in telling the world that a man is the head of a woman. If our political perspective is based on the NT then men and women are equal, just as Paul said "there is no male or female"
How do you reconcile the statement that "there is no male or female" with the statement that "man is the head of the woman"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
This thread is not about the Christian religion, or the Christian church. It is about the political belief of "American Conservatism" and how that corresponds with the Bible.
OK. Isn't it true that American conservatism holds that authority is justified by morality? In other words, according to conservative thinking in a well-ordered world, there should be a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate. Wouldn't an American conservative moral hierarchy look like this?
  • God is above man
  • Man is above nature
  • The strong are above the weak
  • The rich are above the poor
  • Employers are above employees
  • Adults are above children
  • Western society is above other societies
  • America is above other countries
  • Men are above women
  • Christians are above non-christians
  • Straights are above gays

If you disagree with any of those bullet points or that any do not represent American conservativism, which one[s]?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 12:59 PM   #20
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
How do you reconcile the statement that "there is no male or female" with the statement that "man is the head of the woman"?
It is complicated. I have already done this when I discussed the verses about a woman keeping silent in Timothy. If you want to get into this I would rather have a different thread because I think I have made the Biblical position concerning women in a political arena that includes unbelievers very clear. Reconciling all the NT verses concerning women in the church is really a different topic and is far more complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
OK. Isn't it true that American conservatism holds that authority is justified by morality? In other words, according to conservative thinking in a well-ordered world, there should be a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate. Wouldn't an American conservative moral hierarchy look like this?
  • God is above man
  • Man is above nature
  • The strong are above the weak
  • The rich are above the poor
  • Employers are above employees
  • Adults are above children
  • Western society is above other societies
  • America is above other countries
  • Men are above women
  • Christians are above non-christians
  • Straights are above gays

If you disagree with any of those bullet points or that any do not represent American conservativism, which one[s]?
Once again I would lump all of these points under the supposed Judaeo Christian values.

The only one I agree with is the first.

However, if you were to change the terminology from "above" to something else I could see my way to agreeing with a few more.

For example, man is a steward with regards to nature and was put here to tend and keep the garden.

Then employees are to submit to the employer as unto the Lord. That obviously does not apply in a political stance which includes unbelievers. Therefore I would substitute "the Lord" with "the constitution and the law". Children are supposed to submit "in the Lord". Again I would substitute Law for Lord.

Our constitution does not discriminate based on religion so then Christians, non Christians, Straight and Gay need to submit to the law and the constitution.

When we talk about the US and other societies we need to substitute Law for "Universal declaration of human rights".

James makes it very clear we are not to make distinctions based on money (so I would reject the rich and poor). Likewise, a reading of James and Hebrews 11 makes it very clear that it is generally the weak that are strong in faith, Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth, so I would reject your point on the strong and weak.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 02:48 PM   #21
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,524
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
These are two different issues. There are practices in the church and there are practices in politics which involve the unbelievers. The NT is very clear that we should not make this a teaching to anyone who wants to be contentious. If you saw any of yesterdays hearing on SCOTUS it is very clear that when it comes to politics everyone wants to be contentious.

I do not have an issue with a church who takes the words "to love your wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" very literally. In that case if they also want to teach that the head of the woman is the man, fine.

But I have a very big problem where you have unbelievers, sinners, those who have never repented, confessed or in any way dealing with their sinful life thinking that they are the head of the woman. Jesus died so that we could be free from the bondage of sin, He is not going to now shackle a woman to a sinful man. I also have a very big problem with people who take verses from the Bible out of context, and applying "the head of every woman is the man" to the political arena is very clearly out of context.
So you have a very big problem with unbelievers using your Bible?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 04:44 PM   #22
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
So you have a very big problem with unbelievers using your Bible?
No, I have a very big problem with Christians cherry picking verses that they wish to impose on unbelievers.

Likewise if you are not in the church then verses in books written to the church and the saints in the church do not apply to you. However, if you wish to confess, repent and receive Jesus salvation, then they will. Failure in marriage is a good motivation for people to repent. In my opinion many of those who come to the church have had a shipwrecked marriage. If they come to the church and see some very good examples of marriages that work that can be a very strong testimony and present a path for salvation.

The problem with a woman pastor is that you don't have that example. If you pick a husband of one wife who raises his family well, then you do have a good example. Many foolish people pretend this is sexist, but is it? Everyone with any experience in the church knows that 2/3 of the members are women and that the wife of the pastor is a leader in church among the women. You have picked both a man and a woman and the honor given to the man makes up for the fact that the woman is probably more influential. But if you pick a woman as pastor then you only have a woman. How is that not seen as sexist?
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 06:50 PM   #23
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,094
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
It is complicated. I have already done this when I discussed the verses about a woman keeping silent in Timothy. If you want to get into this I would rather have a different thread because I think I have made the Biblical position concerning women in a political arena that includes unbelievers very clear. Reconciling all the NT verses concerning women in the church is really a different topic and is far more complicated.
Paul offers strong support for conservatism which holds that authority is justified by morality. Here Paul explicitly supports the conservative principle that those who have traditionally been dominated should accept domination:

Quote:
Romans 13: 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Once again I would lump all of these points under the supposed Judaeo Christian values.
Religious conservatism in the United States typically supports traditional Judeo-Christian values.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
The only one I agree with is the first.
Do you consider yourself to be a typical American religious conservative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
However, if you were to change the terminology from "above" to something else I could see my way to agreeing with a few more. For example, man is a steward with regards to nature and was put here to tend and keep the garden.
So then you don't recognize Paul's Roman's 13 standard which implies that everyone has authorities above them that they should be subject to and may have subordinates below them that should be subject to them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Then employees are to submit to the employer as unto the Lord. That obviously does not apply in a political stance which includes unbelievers. Therefore I would substitute "the Lord" with "the constitution and the law". Children are supposed to submit "in the Lord". Again I would substitute Law for Lord.
So, you intentionally apply a double standard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Our constitution does not discriminate based on religion so then Christians, non Christians, Straight and Gay need to submit to the law and the constitution. When we talk about the US and other societies we need to substitute Law for "Universal declaration of human rights".
I'm not sure what you mean by that latter point. Can you clarify?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
James makes it very clear we are not to make distinctions based on money (so I would reject the rich and poor). Likewise, a reading of James and Hebrews 11 makes it very clear that it is generally the weak that are strong in faith, Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth, so I would reject your point on the strong and weak.
Are you asserting that you're such a model American conservative that we can reliably judge what a conservative position is by whether or not you accept or reject it?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 04:28 AM   #24
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Paul offers strong support for conservatism which holds that authority is justified by morality. Here Paul explicitly supports the conservative principle that those who have traditionally been dominated should accept domination:
That is merely an interpretation. When he tells slaves to submit to their master's as unto the Lord he is saying that regardless of the situation we can live and express Christ. It doesn't mean that this situation won't change. The book of Philemon is an excellent view into the complexities of Paul's view.

Once again I would point out that although the Bible (and the Lord) support one version of slavery (selling yourself for a limited time to pay a debt, and the law concerning the Jubilee proves it is a limited time for all involved). There is no support in the Bible for chattel slavery. There are no "slave traders", that is prohibited by the Bible. Yes, a conquered enemy can be a slave, and an illegal alien can be a slave, but those are two different situations. An illegal alien could get a legal status (slave) in which they could stay, work, support themselves and even have a family in Israel. What they couldn't do is become a citizen. I personally think this would be far more righteous for the 11 million illegal aliens in the US. Give them a permanent status as "guest worker". They came here illegally so they do not ever get to jump the line for citizenship, on the other hand they can work here, support their family and live without fear of being deported. Likewise, with POW's there was no "prison". No one had time or money for that. You have a choice, die, or work as a slave based on the laws in Israel that protect slaves. If you don't like it then think long and hard about attacking Israel. Once again I think this is a far more righteous solution than Guantanamo bay, or sending our prisoners to foreign countries to be tortured.

However, both Paul and Jesus very clearly supported the Bible, and in the Bible you have a Jubilee every 50 years. So, there is no "institutional slavery". Hence there is no thought in the Bible that "those who traditionally have been dominated should accept domination". Rather, the concept is to be accountable for your actions. If you have a debt, pay it. If you committed a crime, pay for the harm caused. If you would rather work for slave wages in Israel than stay in your country, you can. If you attacked Israel and tried to kill them, then you will pay a price for that as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Religious conservatism in the United States typically supports traditional Judeo-Christian values.
If the comments you have made are typical of Religious conservatism in the US then no, they don't support Judeo-Christian values. There is no need for us to define or color this discussion with "traditions" we have the Bible and can read it for ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Do you consider yourself to be a typical American religious conservative?
No. (I will give details, see the next post on minimum wage.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
So then you don't recognize Paul's Roman's 13 standard which implies that everyone has authorities above them that they should be subject to and may have subordinates below them that should be subject to them?
13 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: 4 for [a]he is a minister of God to thee for good.

Paul does not say that some people are above others, he says that there is a "higher power from God". This higher power applies to all people. We have laws and everyone must submit to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
So, you intentionally apply a double standard?
I am merely observing that there is a double standard when a person rejects the gospel yet wants to apply certain verses to themselves. For an unbeliever to reject Jesus Christ, reject loving their wife even as Christ loved the church, but then wants his wife to recognize him as the head. That is a double standard and I reject that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by that latter point. Can you clarify?
The UN is a place where we are defining the relationship between one nation and another. Those laws define what you can and cannot do. The president of the US cannot order the US military to commit war crimes, obeying that order will not be defensible. Everyone in the military knows what the international laws are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Are you asserting that you're such a model American conservative that we can reliably judge what a conservative position is by whether or not you accept or reject it?
I could care less with defining the conservative position. I simply pulled the definition from Wikipedia and used that. My only interest in this thread is to see how much their views correspond with the Bible. I am not a conservative, or republican, or democrat, or socialist, or communist, etc. I am a someone who feels the Bible has the answers concerning setting up a society firmly founded on a rock of righteousness.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 04:42 AM   #25
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Minimum wage

So let's get into the nitty gritty.

Conservatives oppose raising the minimum wage for 3 reasons:

1. Higher minimum wage -- fewer jobs
2. Higher costs wipe out the gains in higher wage
3. Middle class hit the hardest.

On the one hand I agree with these three points as being valid. On the other hand I do not agree with inaction. All they have done is explain why this course of action is not a solution, rather than giving us a solution.

If they truly embrace Judeo-Christian values then they should embrace the solution that Jesus laid out in Matthew 20:

1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that was a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. 2 And when he had agreed with the laborers for a [a]shilling a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing in the marketplace idle; 4 and to them he said, Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. 5 Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; and he saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? 7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard. 8 And when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. 9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a [b]shilling. 10 And when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received every man a [c]shilling. 11 And when they received it, they murmured against the householder, 12 saying, These last have spent but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, who have borne the burden of the day and the [d]scorching heat. 13 But he answered and said to one of them, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a [e]shilling? 14 Take up that which is thine, and go thy way; it is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? or is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last.

The problem with those at the lowest end of the wage scale is that they are asked to work part time. If I make $10 an hour and I have to work for 4 hours, that is $40. I still have to pay $5.50 for the bus. In NYC it can take 1 1/2 hours to go from bus to subway to a job. Can you imagine spending 3 hours commuting so that I can work for 4 hours? I still have to pay for lunch, dress in my uniform, have someone watch my child. When you are living "day to day" you need to be paid a "daily" wage, not an hourly wage. At some point it is not worth it to go to work. Then the employee appears "lazy".

If you changed the law for hourly employees to be paid as "daily" employees instead that would be a huge benefit to the poor. You aren't raising the minimum wage, so there is no reason to lose jobs, or for costs to go up, or for the Middle class to be hit. Now this portion is specific to the lowest wage, day laborer. We are not talking about working overtime when you already have a 40 hour a week job, nor are we talking about the consultant making $200 an hour. It is a law to give a chance to the poor.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 06:00 AM   #26
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: How to deal with violence in Chicago

A big issue with this last campaign was the violence and murder rate in Chicago.

There is a very simple solution, we need to computerize all gun receipts. At present all the records are stored on paper, in boxes, in trailers, and are virtually impossible to access. As a result there is a long list of gun related deaths that go unresolved. The reason for this is that the NRA argues that if the US had a computerized data base of all guns it would be the first step to seizing them.

I think that those who originally thought the NRA's argument was fallacious might want to reconsider with our present administration.

Now to be clear, the NRA has no issue with the FBI trying to track down a gun that committed a crime.

So then I see the solution as being very simple. A non governmental organization could maintain the records. I would not agree with the NRA keeping them because it could be used by them to build their organization. No, I think you need an organization that is quasi governmental, like the US Post office. Their mission is to keep the records in pristine condition and they can only be accessed by FBI if there is a court order.

I would welcome the NRA being fully involved in the design of this system as long as it was computerized and made pulling gun records as easy as pulling fingerprints.

I also think a special tax on guns and bullets could go to paying for this database, just like toll booths are a tax on those using the road.

What we have seen with rape we will also see with gun violence. If a person who uses a gun to commit a crime is very rapidly caught and convicted then criminals will very quickly stop using guns.

This organization should be set up so that donations to it would be 100% tax deductible in the first two years. This would allow companies like google and yahoo to upgrade server farms with the top of the line computers while donating their existing server farms to this organization.

If we added this to the Post Office responsibilities you would help the Post office remain competitive. Also, since we already allow them to handle our mail their should be no legal issue in them handling gun receipts. Improper use of either one would be seen as an illegal or warrantless search. This would give you a large, existing organization located in every town that is very capable of handling lots of paper. Instead of firing postal workers they could hire extra workers to scan documents into the database. This could be up and running very rapidly.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 08:23 AM   #27
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,524
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNP
I could care less with defining the conservative position. I simply pulled the definition from Wikipedia and used that. My only interest in this thread is to see how much their views correspond with the Bible. I am not a conservative, or republican, or democrat, or socialist, or communist, etc. I am a someone who feels the Bible has the answers concerning setting up a society firmly founded on a rock of righteousness.
Okay bro ZNP, while you're just throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks, for clarification maybe, answer this:

Are you a 7 mountians guy?

This is an effort to place “Christian” control over seven areas of our lives as “pillars of society.”
The 7 areas are:
  1. Arts and Entertainment
  2. Business
  3. Education
  4. Family
  5. Government
  6. Media
  7. Religion
https://forwardprogressives.com/the-...-be-terrified/
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.

Last edited by awareness; 03-23-2017 at 11:50 AM.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 11:25 AM   #28
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,094
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
That is merely an interpretation. When he tells slaves to submit to their master's as unto the Lord he is saying that regardless of the situation we can live and express Christ.
That is merely an interpretation as are the rest of your statements on this post.

Quote:
I could care less with defining the conservative position. I simply pulled the definition from Wikipedia and used that. My only interest in this thread is to see how much their views correspond with the Bible. I am not a conservative, or republican, or democrat, or socialist, or communist, etc. I am a someone who feels the Bible has the answers concerning setting up a society firmly founded on a rock of righteousness.
That makes you a conservative according to the Wikipedia definition you gave in post #1 of this thread.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 02:52 PM   #29
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
That is merely an interpretation as are the rest of your statements on this post.
Then there is more than one way to interpret it. To resolve this you should look wider -- Philemon, Jesus Redemption, Slaves leaving Egypt, etc. Based on the entire Bible you are on very shaky ground and I can support my interpretation with multiple verses, multiple references from both the Old and New Testament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
That makes you a conservative according to the Wikipedia definition you gave in post #1 of this thread.
Post #1 does not represent my opinion, it is the definition of American conservatism from Wikipedia. My position is I would like to know what this is and examine if it is in fact Biblical. So far I have found several key discrepancies with this opinion and the Bible and on each of those discrepancies I side with the Bible.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 05:35 AM   #30
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,094
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Then there is more than one way to interpret it.
Obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
To resolve this you should look wider -- Philemon, Jesus Redemption, Slaves leaving Egypt, etc. Based on the entire Bible you are on very shaky ground and I can support my interpretation with multiple verses, multiple references from both the Old and New Testament.
I have looked wider and I too can support my interpretation with references throughout the Bible. Now what?



Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Post #1 does not represent my opinion, it is the definition of American conservatism from Wikipedia. My position is I would like to know what this is and examine if it is in fact Biblical. So far I have found several key discrepancies with this opinion and the Bible and on each of those discrepancies I side with the Bible.
Of course. What you are actually doing is siding with your interpretation of the Bible. That's not surprising. It would be surprising if you did otherwise.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2017, 06:59 PM   #31
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: American Conservatism and the Bible

I have been considering what Jesus or the Bible would say on the health care debate.

I have concluded there are three aspects that could apply.

1. Levitical priesthood in the OT could be considered to include healthcare function, hence the OT version of healthcare is much closer to a state plan like Britain, Canada or Taiwan.

2. Jesus commended the "sheep" saying that whenever they did this for the least of His brethren they had done it for Him. However, this doesn't look like a "gov't policy" but charity.

3. Judas is the one saying "why wasn't this sold and given to the poor". It seems that many who are most vocal to "give to the poor" don't actually care about the poor but are thieves and steal what is given.

I know that my personal preference is to expand medicare to include everyone without a job. Now that would result in a significant bump in the tax burden. I would think the best way to pay for it would be to expand medicare to include those with jobs as well. The additional taxes for those without insurance would be balanced by the lower insurance premiums for those with jobs.

Now I realize that the US is based on "free enterprise" and there are many wealthy who might want the "platinum" version of healthcare. It seems to me that you could buy extra insurance if you wished. I would model this on our education plan -- everyone is covered with "public education" while the rich can send their kids to private school as well.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:32 PM.


3.8.9