A flat tax in the works for the US?

[David Floyd]

Agathon,

He certainly seems to have been interested in helping suffering people.

True, but the difference between your values and those of Jesus is that Jesus favored voluntary charity, while you favor government-coerced transfers of wealth.

Kid,

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

I never claimed that about natural rights - Berz did. While I would tend to agree with him, I'm not going down that road. This isn't the thread for it. Create one, if you like.

It seems that politics to you only entails debating political ideologies. Every human action or belief is political.

Good point, but when I use the phrase "Christianity is apolitical", I simply mean that there is no "Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Libertarian" slant to Jesus's teachings, and any slant that one perceives is coincidental. Jesus's teachings were not and are not meant to support any particular political viewpoint.

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.

True, the various butchers who ruled Europe for centuries had little trouble using the Bible to justify their political views. Look at the carnage that caused.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Much of this impact on politics that you speak of comes from the MISAPPLICATION of Jesus's teachings

No it doesn't. You think if Christians decided to give most of the weath, voluntarily (in this example), it won't have a political effect? A substantial change in socio-economic status of the society will always have large effects on politics.

That doesn't mean that Jesus meant his message to be political, though, except in the sense that he was teaching right and wrong.

What do you think politics, in the end, is about? Who's right and wrong wins out over the others!

If Jesus taught that Christians should give of themselves to help others in need

What about the slaveowner in need, who has lost his property?

he 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.

Unlike political viewpoints?! Sounds like natural law theory to me, which is a political viewpoint.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Good point, but when I use the phrase "Christianity is apolitical", I simply mean that there is no "Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Libertarian" slant to Jesus's teachings, and any slant that one perceives is coincidental. Jesus's teachings were not and are not meant to support any particular political viewpoint.

We know very little about Jesus unfortunately, but the rulers that you mention have very likely made Jesus' teachings seem apolitical, but they are not apolitical for that very reason.

[David Floyd]

No it doesn't. You think if Christians decided to give most of the weath, voluntarily (in this example), it won't have a political effect? A substantial change in socio-economic status of the society will always have large effects on politics.

That doesn't change the fact that giving isn't meant to be about influencing a political outcome, it's about helping people.

What do you think politics, in the end, is about? Who's right and wrong wins out over the others!

True, but OBJECTIVE right and wrong is by nature NOT based in politics. Sure, it'll influence politics, but nonetheless, Jesus's teachings about right and wrong are not done with any particular political slant or belief.

What about the slaveowner in need, who has lost his property?

People can't be property, no matter what the state or the majority says.

Unlike political viewpoints?! Sounds like natural law theory to me, which is a political viewpoint.

The difference, though, is that natural law theory comes from fallible humans, while Jesus's teachings come from a perfect infallible source.

Again, though, we are going a little off course. The main point is that regardless of any influence they may have on wordly politics, Jesus's teachings about helping the poor are designed simply to help the poor, not achieve a political outcome or get a certain person elected. On the other hand, that's EXACTLY what most wealth transfer programs currently on the books are or were about - professional politicians pandering to the electorate.

[David Floyd]

the rulers that you mention have very likely made Jesus' teachings seem apolitical, but they are not apolitical for that very reason.

Right, they are apolitical because of their intent.

Looking at the political application and use of teachings meant to be apolitical, in order to justify things like the Spanish Inquisition, and saying that those acts mean the teachings were meant to be political doesn't really work.

[Kidlicious]

DF,

Even assuming that Jesus was God. The things he said were political. They were not objective truths. People disagreed with them. They still do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Right, they are apolitical because of their intent.

Looking at the political application and use of teachings meant to be apolitical, in order to justify things like the Spanish Inquisition, and saying that those acts mean the teachings were meant to be political doesn't really work.

You're confusing people's claims with reality. You will always have people who claim that what they believe are objective truths when they aren't. That doesn't make their beleifs apolitical.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That doesn't change the fact that giving isn't meant to be about influencing a political outcome, it's about helping people.

Helping people, in itself, has political consequences and is a political idea (it is good to do so).

OBJECTIVE right and wrong is by nature NOT based in politics.

If people disagree, is it objective? I saw that because, like the natural law people, they believe they have objective right and wrong through the workings of nature.

People can't be property, no matter what the state or the majority says.

I don't recall Jesus calling for mass freeing of slaves.

that natural law theory comes from fallible humans, while Jesus's teachings come from a perfect infallible source.

They'd disagree and says it comes from nature itself. Hence, objective. Are they not political either?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You will always have people who claim that what they believe are objective truths when they aren't. That doesn't make their beleifs apolitical.

Exactly! So many different political groups consider themselves to have objective truth, whether from God, nature, or human nature.

[David Floyd]

The things he said were political. They were not objective truths. People disagreed with them. They still do.

So, if I disagree with something that is true, then suddenly that truth is ambiguous? OK, I think that gravity won't make me fall if I jump off a building. I don't think I changed anything, though.

Can we agree that mere disagreement with objective truth does not invalidate objective truth?

You're confusing people's claims with reality. You will always have people who claim that what they believe are objective truths when they aren't. That doesn't make their beleifs apolitical.

Exactly. On the other hand, stating an objective truth, that IS an objective truth, is not really a political statement.

But again, we're going off course. The intent of Jesus's teachings was not to influence politics, but rather to help people. That fact makes those teachings apolitical in their nature and intent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can we agree that mere disagreement with objective truth does not invalidate objective truth?

Who's objective truth? Christians? Muslims? Natural Law people? Communists? Hegelians? Who has the objective truth?

The intent of Jesus's teachings was not to influence politics, but rather to help people. That fact makes those teachings apolitical in their nature and intent.

So if a person raise taxes because he really wants to help the poor and isn't doing it for votes, then he is not engaging in any political behavior because he is only trying to help people?

[David Floyd]

Exactly! So many different political groups consider themselves to have objective truth, whether from God, nature, or human nature.

I agree, the problem is proving it. I thought we were both operating under the assumption that Christianity, and Jesus's teachings, have a basis in absolute truth. If we can't agree on that, then any discussion of Christianity and Jesus's teachings is useless. On the other hand, if we can agree on that, then this discussion about what people think and whether or not they disagree with objective truth is useless.

Either way, you're simply trying to complicate the issue by debating the point.

[David Floyd]

So if a person raise taxes because he really wants to help the poor and isn't doing it for votes, then he is not engaging in any political behavior because he is only trying to help people?

No, raising taxes is directly coercing another to support your viewpoint, which is a political act.

On the other hand, telling people that they should help those in need, for the (actual, not stated) purpose of getting help to those who need it, are not really political in the same sense that you are when you raise taxes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, raising taxes is directly coercing another to support your viewpoint, which is a political act.

But he is doing it only to help people! Didn't you say that if the intent is helping people it is apolitical?

telling people that they should help those in need, for the (actual, not stated) purpose of getting help to those who need it, are not really political in the same sense that you are when you raise taxes.

Why? Aren't you trying to persuade people to follow your political belief that helping people is good? What's the difference?

I thought we were both operating under the assumption that Christianity, and Jesus's teachings, have a basis in absolute truth.

Why should we? You brought up that it is 'objective truth' and thus no political. The mere fact that what is objective truth is disputed and unknown makes that stating of truth a political exercise (who can you convince).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Most flat tax proposal start at ~40K - ~30K, all dollars under it are exempt. Plus they would have to get rid of exemptions. I don't see how Bush has really moved toward this by flattening the curve. It really hasn't made it more politically feasible.

Flat tax with a big exemption is perfectly fair. Everybody pays the same percentage on every penny they make over the excemption. It would certainly mean a hell of a lot less paperwork every year ahead of april 15th.