A flat tax in the works for the US?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

Gravity is varifiable. It truely is objective. Sorry, but any religion simply isn't. Religion is the MOST subjective thing, and therefore just as political as a political debate, if not more so.

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

Sure, but even agreement would not make the thing apolitical. The people who disagree with Christianity do so for genuine reasons. Even if you could convince them of Christianity. That wouldn't make it an objective truth.

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.

He absolutely did want to influence politics. He only did so from a viewpoint of the established authority. What you aren't understanding is that it is very rare not to be political. Even not saying things is political, becuase you make implications.

[David Floyd]

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

True, but the difference is that your hypothetical person is taking a direct action which results in coercion, while Jesus was simply teaching certain values, which, if used, would not involve coercion.

Specifically, you're right - I oversimplified. Jesus's teaching was non-political because it was not directed towards a political end, AND because it did not involve trading one person's rights away.

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

No, I'd be trying to persuade people to follow my moral belief, which is based in an absolute truth (which you are free to contest, but if you do so, that makes this whole "God" discussion irrelevant, and you're the one who brought it up to begin with).

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).

*shrug* You're the one who brought up Christianity in the context of a debate on taxes (in a typical attempt to try to muddy the issue). I assumed that given the fact that you brought it up, you wanted to discuss Christianity from a common context. I have absolutely no interest in discussing the validity of Christianity - if you want to do that, go talk to BK or someone.

My mistake. Then again, you shouldn't have brought up Christianity to say that a flat tax is wrong, because that takes us pretty quickly to the position we currently occupy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was God. He still had a political agenda.

[David Floyd]

Gravity is varifiable. It truely is objective. Sorry, but any religion simply isn't

First of all, gravity was an objective fact before it could be scientifically define (in fact, it still isn't entirely understood). Secondly, I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Imran - I'm not going to try to prove Christianity. I'm more than happy to discuss flat taxes in the context of Christianity, but only if we can either stay on topic OR operate from a common belief regarding the truth of Christianity.

Even if you could convince them of Christianity. That wouldn't make it an objective truth.

Naturally. The only thing that makes someone an objective truth is whether or not it is, well, an objective truth. Doesn't matter what you or I think/say.

He absolutely did want to influence politics. He only did so from a viewpoint of the established authority. What you aren't understanding is that it is very rare not to be political. Even not saying things is political, becuase you make implications.

Again, we are looking at the issue with different assumptions. Even if you define politics broadly enough to include any statement or teaching anyone ever makes, then the best you can say is that Jesus's "political" slant is different than any political party or belief system in existence.

[David Floyd]

It doesn't matter if Jesus was God. He still had a political agenda.

Not in the sense that the Holy Roman Emperor had a political agenda.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Not in the sense that the Holy Roman Emperor had a political agenda.

They both wanted people to obey a certain authority. That's politics bud.

[David Floyd]

hey both wanted people to obey a certain authority. That's politics bud.

And that's really a mischaracterization of Christianity.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Again, we are looking at the issue with different assumptions. Even if you define politics broadly enough to include any statement or teaching anyone ever makes, then the best you can say is that Jesus's "political" slant is different than any political party or belief system in existence.

Personally I don't think that Jesus was much into authoritah, but the way his teachings appear to us today I say different. His teachings are used to justify authority still today. Now saying that he would or would not have supported a flat tax is simply speculation. It depends on your personal view point about Jesus. Of course I think he was more of a communist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And that's really a mischaracterization of Christianity.

No it's not. Christianity is all about obedience.

[Shi Huangdi]

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,

See my above example that I posted to ML. Taxing too much from already poor person could greatly increase someones wants and be less able to afford basic needs such as healthcare for themselves or there Christians.

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.

We could start up the whole Catholic/Protestant Faith and works debate, again, except that it's been done 100 times before here, that it would be a threadjacking, and that I am way too busy to go into that and I can refer you to a good source if you are interested in learning the catholic position/having a debate on that.

Suffice it to say, it is at least clear that Jesus commanded us to live our lives a certain way.

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.

Again, this specific issue isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It's about the state not burdening the already underprivilidged through additional taxation.

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..

If you hold to a Protestant view of Human Nature it wouldn't seem to likely you would hold a voluntary system could eliminate the problems associated with poverty in your system. In any case, it seems unlikely religious charity would be able to extend so far as to cover the full extent of poverty in this country, particularly so if the economy were to become a laissez-faire system.

Funny, I never saw that in the Bible.

I ask you, would it be a virtuous act to help teach a child to read? Or to encourage somebody not to take drugs? You won't find either of those acts listed in the bible as ways to help you. It would take far too long for Jesus to list every good act that he smiles on and that glorifies God. Yet, most people would agree the above actions I listed are consistent with Christian principles and the spirit of Jesus' teachings. In the same way, working politically for a just society can also be seen as consistent with those teachings, even if political action was not directly mentioned in the bible.

[Kidlicious]

That's why it's the prefered religion of rulers.

[axi]

I wonder how can anybody be proud of being a conservative. Specially if that person is under 50 years old.

10 quick steps to communism:

1. Form an alliance of left wing parties, synidates and popular organisations.
2. Bring a popular government in by elections.
3. Tax the rich until they squeak and help the poor.
4. Suppress the ensuing coup, by the reactionaries.
5. Socialise all industry.
6. Suppress a second coup, which is backed by imperialist centres.
7. Arm the people.
8. Fend off an imperialistic intervention.
9. Give all power to the soviets.
10. Form a communist international and export revolution.

As you can see, taxation is an essential part of the recipe.

[Kidlicious]

Socializing every industry should pretty much do it actually.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I'm not to big on this "flat" stuff either, is there an option for "tax implants?"

[Agathon]

Has anyone else read Al Franken's Gospel of Supply Side Jesus?

Now I know what Floyd's been readin'