A flat tax in the works for the US?

[David Floyd]

Translation. Everything I agree with is non-political. Everything I don't believe in is political. But that's not a political statement. Only a politician or a communist would say that it is.

1)Refer to my sig.

2)I'm a very political person. Jesus was not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm a very political person. Jesus was not.

Maybe I get you confused with Berzerker, but don't you always claim that natural rights are not political. And Jesus was absolutely political. Only a christian would say otherwise.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually, I'd like to see you justify where the NT supports the existence of ANY tax. The only passage you can use is "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's", but that was an example of Jesus sidestepping a political issue.

In any case, the Bible, and Christianity, is not about how much each segment of the population is taxed, and that's my whole point. The bottom line of Christianity is salvation through grace. God is concerned about the condition of our souls, not our bank accounts. While you may think it's unfair to have a flat tax, that isn't a Christian or non-Christian issue, and Jesus never intended Christianity (to say nothing of himself) being used to push a particular political viewpoint.

You didn't adress my point. My point was that positive action taken by the state that would place a severe burden on the poor was not justified from a Christian perspective. You just went on about biblical support for any tax in general. Your statement that Christianity is merely about salvation by grace is not correct, or else Jesus wasted his time by talking about works he wanted us to do, and I don't think supporting a tax that would place undue hardship on the poor is consistent with his principles. Rather, if we have a tax, the burden should be fairly distributed based on the hardship it causes, not based on raw percentages taken out.

As far as biblical support of taxation, from a Protestant perspective I am not sure how I would answer. From my Catholic perspective, there is more establishment in terms of traditional on the role of the state in society, a tradition that I don't believe my previously held libertarian beliefs were in line with.

[David Floyd]

Maybe I get you confused with Berzerker, but don't you always claim that natural rights are not political.

I don't recall saying that, but I do see Berzerker's point. On the other hand, you're again bringing in a side issue. Whether or not natural rights are political is irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was political.

And Jesus was absolutely political. Only a christian would say otherwise.

Good argument

By the way, refer to my sig.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you can't say that the original teachings of Jesus

Of course I can. To say his teachings were meant not to have anything to do with the political sphere at all is naive. What happens if a great number of people become Christians? What then? Obviously they impact politics. Are you saying that Jesus was blind to obvious foreseeable consequences?

The "eye of the needle" did not refer to an actual needle, it referred to a gate into the city of Jerusalem that was very difficult for camels to enter, yet it could be done.

I've heard of his revisionism before. Probably by rich folk who wanted to be able to get into heaven without living the life of the ascetic.

a Christian harboring fugitive slaves during the 1840s would be acting contrary to the law, but in accordance with the teachings of Jesus

Really? And where does Jesus say to harbor fugutive slaves? And if he does, that isn't a political position? What about a dictator that kills Christians? Would he say nothing on that?

And ignoring the law that offends Christian conscience has no political undertones? Come on! Even you can't be that daft!

[Moral Hazard]

True, but even that isn't absolute. There is no requirement for a Christian to obey an immoral law. .

I agree, divine law supersedes natural law; but I don't think He was so much side stepping political issues.

That's exactly what that means. Oh wait, libertarians understand things a little different.

Libertarians don't advocate tax evasion etc. They just want to change the law.

[Agathon]

I don't claim any such thing. I just claim that he wouldn't agree with yours, or anyone's. Jesus was not interested in politics, and he certainly wasn't interested in who had more money.

He certainly seems to have been interested in helping suffering people. Presumably, carpentry didn't pay well, or he could have given them money. I suppose when you can summon wine and food at will, there is little reason for that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Libertarians don't advocate tax evasion etc. They just want to change the law.

Maybe you should tell that to their presidential candidate.

[Moral Hazard]

Maybe you should tell that to their presidential candidate.

Well I always dismissed him out of hand. So I didn't even know he went to jail three times for tax evasion

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I don't recall saying that, but I do see Berzerker's point. On the other hand, you're again bringing in a side issue. Whether or not natural rights are political is irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was political.



Good argument

By the way, refer to my sig.

Your claim that both natural rights and christianity are non-political shows how little you understand politics. It seems that politics to you only entails debating political ideologies. Every human action or belief is political. Claiming that a religion existing and changing over thousands of years is non-political... well, only libertarians and christians I'm afraid ... actually I should say only libertarians and libertarian christians would believe that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your claim that both natural rights and christianity are non-political shows how little you understand politics.

For once, I agree with you, Kid .

[Kidlicious]

You know you like it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I feel dirty and need a shower... it must be all your hippy vibes .

[David Floyd]

Shi,

You didn't adress my point. My point was that positive action taken by the state that would place a severe burden on the poor was not justified from a Christian perspective.

First of all, I'm not sure how it would place a severe burden on the poor. It would just take a burden off the rich and middle class. The poor might have to pay more money relative to their income, and thus be poorer, but if you and Imran are correct about the virtue of poverty, isn't that a good thing?

Your statement that Christianity is merely about salvation by grace is not correct, or else Jesus wasted his time by talking about works he wanted us to do,

Those works do not make us Christians. Only salvation by grace through faith does so. Once we become Christians, we naturally will want to do acts that are glorifying to God, and will want to give of ourselves to help others. But this doesn't mean that we are obligated to pass laws forcing both Christians and non-Christians to do so. Jesus' teachings about virtue and goodness and the like were all based on voluntary compliance - in that sense his teachings were very apolitical, in that they didn't support laws supporting one or the other.

and I don't think supporting a tax that would place undue hardship on the poor is consistent with his principles.

The term "undue hardship" is subjective, and beyond that, the poor are supposed to receive assistance based on voluntary charity, not government-coerced donations, which is (along with the military) the majority of what taxes go to anyway.

I personally think a "welfare system" relying solely on private entities and voluntary donations would be perfectly in line with Christian principles, regardless of what "undue burden" you think that puts on the poor.

Rather, if we have a tax, the burden should be fairly distributed based on the hardship it causes, not based on raw percentages taken out.

Funny, I never saw that in the Bible.

Imran,

Of course I can. To say his teachings were meant not to have anything to do with the political sphere at all is naive. What happens if a great number of people become Christians?

Then Jesus' purpose is partially fulfilled. Of course, the number of true Christians relative to those who claim to be Christians will always be pretty small, anyway. Half of the Nazis were "Christians", but I doubt any of them were actually Christians.

What then? Obviously they impact politics. Are you saying that Jesus was blind to obvious foreseeable consequences?

Much of this impact on politics that you speak of comes from the MISAPPLICATION of Jesus's teachings, not the application of his political slant. Do you really think that the influence of Christianity on the Thirty Years War, for example, was an example of the extension of any supposed political bias of Jesus?

Further, you ask if having a Christian in a position of leadership will impact politics. Sure it will (although less so in the US than you might think). That doesn't mean that Jesus meant his message to be political, though, except in the sense that he was teaching right and wrong.

I've heard of his revisionism before. Probably by rich folk who wanted to be able to get into heaven without living the life of the ascetic.

OK, but the basic point I was making was the underlying message - the rich need to learn humility, which is difficult precisely because of their wealth, not that the rich are automatically disqualified from salvation.

Really? And where does Jesus say to harbor fugutive slaves?

If Jesus taught that Christians should give of themselves to help others in need, then harboring a fugitive slave would certainly fit that definition.

And ignoring the law that offends Christian conscience has no political undertones?

Sure, it can be seen that way. What you have to realize though, is that the assumption I'm working from is that Christianity is objectively correct, unlike political viewpoints. Given that, if a law is contrary to Christianity, than that law is objectively wrong, and ignoring that law isn't a political act, but rather a morally right act.

Naturally, this brings up the point of how to prove Christianity is objectively correct, which is something I'll leave to others. The main point, though, is that we are operating from different sets of assumptions, which is part of the problem we aren't really getting what the other is saying.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I feel dirty and need a shower... it must be all your hippy vibes .

I'm not a hippy. Stop learning about the world from King of the Hill.