Rick Santorum

[USincognito]

The region would swallow up Israel and that would be that.

I prefer our foreign policy to be determined by Realpolitik and not Hal Lindsay or the Left Behind book series.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I prefer our foreign policy to be determined by Realpolitik and not Hal Lindsay or the Left Behind book series.

See, here's the thing I never understood about the latter. Most Christians I come across in this country freak out about the idea of Iran going up against Israel and the big mighty U.S. has to stand up for her 'cause if they don't, she's screwed!

...but then out of the other side of their mouths they preach that nobody can harm Israel and that as soon as Iran and the other countries go after Israel it's the end of time and Jesus comes back.

 

[NightHawkeye]

See, here's the thing I never understood about the latter. Most Christians I come across in this country freak out about the idea of Iran going up against Israel and the big mighty U.S. has to stand up for her 'cause if they don't, she's screwed!

...but then out of the other side of their mouths they preach that nobody can harm Israel and that as soon as Iran and the other countries go after Israel it's the end of time and Jesus comes back.

Here, maybe this will help ... the shining city on the hill ...

Micah 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.
5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.
6 In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted;
7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.
8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.
9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counseller perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.
10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
11 Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion.
12 But they know not the thoughts of the LORD, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor.
13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.

​

Questions?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Yes. What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yes. What does that have to do with what I said?

LOL ... you were talking about prophecy ... so I introduced very specific prophecy addressing your expressed concern.

You're welcome.

 

[variant]

Many would be more than happy to fight another war if it is perceived to help Israel.

Many and most aren't the same thing.

 

[zoink]

[snip]

The majority of your argument is stating your own anecdotal opinion as if it were fact. My own anecdotal experiences indicate that you are wrong, but I try whenever possible to not base my arguments on anecdotes alone. I have provided definitions for the world violence from sources other than myself. As far as I can tell simply putting someone in a cage against their will constitutes violence under these definitions. Injuries do not have to be physical, they can be any damage or harm. In the case of the definitions from WHO they use "deprivation" which occurs when confined.

Ok, first of all, where, in the Constitution, does it explicitly grant the power to hold slaves?

USincognito was kind enough to provide. In the end it doesn't matter if it explicitly granted the power to hold slaves. All that matters is that slavery was constitutional.

and then even true-blue human slavery to defend your position that caring for the poor with some tax revenue is despicable

I brought up slavery as a reason why I have a problem with the constitution.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I brought up slavery as a reason why I have a problem with the constitution.

It's not really a very good reason, though, since the Constitution also gives a process to amend the parts you don't think are right, like slavery (which was, in fact, amended).

I could understand your position if the Constitution held that slavery was irrevocable and we were just stuck with it unless we scrapped the Constitution, but that's not how it is.

 

[variant]

It's not really a very good reason, though, since the Constitution also gives a process to amend the parts you don't think are right, like slavery (which was, in fact, amended).

After a bloody civil war.

I could understand your position if the Constitution held that slavery was irrevocable and we were just stuck with it unless we scrapped the Constitution, but that's not how it is.

I think you don't understand because the Constitution only had the viable mechanism to rectify slavery after the nation fought a bloody civil war. Which probably means that the mechanism for changing the Constitution is a bit fundamentally weak (if some states have an interest in and want to deny people fundimental liberties).

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

After a bloody civil war.

And women's rights weren't specifically protected under the Constitution until the early 1900s. When it happens is mostly irrelevant, the ability to change it has still been in there from the beginning.

I think you don't understand because the Constitution only had the viable mechanism to rectify slavery after the nation fought a bloody civil war. Which probably means that the mechanism for changing the Constitution is a bit fundamentally weak (if some states have an interest in and want to deny people fundimental liberties).

The amendment process existed before the Constitution. It was one of the issues they debated heavily on prior to and shortly after writing it. Jefferson himself even thought we ought to have a revolution every generation with a new Constitution each time, and I personally think he was right, for exactly the reasons you bring up. If we had a new Constitution every generation, the document would better address the changing of the times.

Who knows? With such a system, maybe we could have gotten rid of slavery and given minorities and women their rights earlier than we did.

 

[variant]

And women's rights weren't specifically protected under the Constitution until the early 1900s. When it happens is mostly irrelevant, the ability to change it has still been in there from the beginning.

The politics were changeing, that is why we fought the war.

I am saying that it can be pointed to as a weakness of the origional constiution that slavery was protected and the mechanism for political and social change was violent.

The amendment process existed before the Constitution. It was one of the issues they debated heavily on prior to and shortly after writing it. Jefferson himself even thought we ought to have a revolution every generation with a new Constitution each time, and I personally think he was right, for exactly the reasons you bring up. If we had a new Constitution every generation, the document would better address the changing of the times.

Who knows? With such a system, maybe we could have gotten rid of slavery and given minorities and women their rights earlier than we did.

Then you have a problem with the Constitution too as it is written (requiring a revolution every generation is not exactly provided for in the document itself.

The ultimate success of the system of government would be that it could have such revolutions non-violently.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I am saying that it can be pointed to as a weakness of the origional constiution that slavery was protected and the mechanism for political and social change was violent.

*shrug* You could. Or you could just chock it up to the writers being victims of the times they lived in. Given their ideas, if they grew up like us in our modern times, they'd likely be the biggest liberals out there (speaking of classic liberalism)

Then you have a problem with the Constitution too as it is written (requiring a revolution every generation is not exactly provided for in the document itself.

Well, I wouldn't say I have a problem with the whole thing as it was written. Even if I thought it was perfect and handed down by angels on downy pillows from heaven itself and signed by G-d, I'd promote the whole "revolution and new constitution every generation" idea, simply because it makes sense.

The ultimate success of the system of government would be that it could have such revolutions non-violently.

Certainly. I think any democracy/republic could have non-violent revolution quite easily. Both sides just have to be willing to keep force off the table. That's one of the great failings of both sides during the Civil War. They weren't willing to take force off the table, which resulted in the war.

 

[variant]

*shrug* You could. Or you could just chock it up to the writers being victims of the times they lived in. Given their ideas, if they grew up like us in our modern times, they'd likely be the biggest liberals out there (speaking of classic liberalism)

I do. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have problems with the document as it was written.

It was a system of government, we live in it, so it is important to recognize that the people who wrote it largely lived in different times and had political realities to deal with themselves that quenched their idealism. We should recognise the weaknesses that these issues cause.

Well, I wouldn't say I have a problem with the whole thing as it was written. Even if I thought it was perfect and handed down by angels on downy pillows from heaven itself and signed by G-d, I'd promote the whole "revolution and new constitution every generation" idea, simply because it makes sense.

You probably have more problem with the current generation relying on the same Constitution as their four fathers than the person you began by criticizing and yet you are willing to defend it at ever turn.

Certainly. I think any democracy/republic could have non-violent revolution quite easily. Both sides just have to be willing to keep force off the table. That's one of the great failings of both sides during the Civil War. They weren't willing to take force off the table, which resulted in the war.

And when this happens it is a failure both in the people and the failure of the system government that doesn’t make peaceful revolution the likely outcome.

The election that spurred the Civil War was one where the northern abolitionists finally won power over the government which the south could not accept. They had, since the framing of the constitution and the 3/5ths compromise held inappropriate power by counting people as people for the census and property in reality.

It was one of the essential weaknesses in the original document and it came out rather violently.

 

[Erth]

The majority of your argument is stating your own anecdotal opinion as if it were fact. My own anecdotal experiences indicate that you are wrong, but I try whenever possible to not base my arguments on anecdotes alone. I have provided definitions for the world violence from sources other than myself. As far as I can tell simply putting someone in a cage against their will constitutes violence under these these definitions.

Ok, so when someone has committed a crime, and is caught and sentenced for it and "put in a cage", against his will, that's violence to you?? That's the idea you're invoking even if you may not realize it. Have you tried using that line of thinking to try to protect rapists and murderers from that which you call violence? I have an anecdote to share with you and it amounts to my first just rolling my eyes when you used threat of violence as an emotional tickler to further your idea that taxes are, um stealing, was it? I don't even remember at this point but I do remember clearly and I still can see clearly in your posts that you're using the word violence as a trick.

What people who don't want to pay their taxes can do to avoid what you call violence in the future is to get out of the civilized world. I already made this point but it appears that it needs to be re-iterated. We have taxes because we live in a society where the state is accountable for taking care of some things for the sake of our common good. It's a part of civilization and has been so for as long as we can possible know judging by the sources known to man. It is most arguable that it's an essential part of civilization.

Now if you do not want to live in a civilized society, then get out. It may seem unfair, and it may even be unfair, but I'm sorry, you can't ask civilization to get out of your way just because you think you don't want it. I'm afraid you're the one who will have to leave it.

This isn't about a specific tax, it's about taxes in general and about the whole rationale behind taxation. Now if something's in the common good, then taking care of poor people has to be there, because if we don't help them, some will die of poverty, others will steal to make a living, sell harmful drugs, murder for the sake of gain and so on. It's clearly in the common good to take care of poor people even if you personally have issues with it and think it's unfair to you just because a tiny little buck out of your stash goes to it.

 

[Erth]

all of the republican candidates except for paul seem trigger happy...

Democrats - all of them - are also trigger happy then. Obama has probably outdone Bush Jr just as Clinton probably topped Bush Sr in raiding the world with American troops. Democrats have a habit of appealing to the UN and hiding under coalitions with a UN mandate, but it doesn't make them any more the friends of peace. They also don't do the straightforward talk about military operations that the republicans are known for, and you can think it's a good or a bad thing that they engage in war but tend to tone it down in their speech, but it doesn't make democrats any less likely to engage in war.

 

[zoink]

Ok, so when someone has committed a crime, and is caught and sentenced for it and "put in a cage", against his will, that's violence to you?

Yes, and it meets definitions provided by dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Have you tried using that line of thinking to try to protect rapists and murderers from that which you call violence?

Why would I want to protect rapists and murderers from violence used to forcefully subdue them? Do you not think violence should be used to stop and subdue rapists and murderers?

um stealing, was it?

I'm still unaware where I brought up stealing or theft.

What people who don't want to pay their taxes can do to avoid what you call violence in the future is to get out of the civilized world. I already made this point but it appears that it needs to be re-iterated.

I already responded to this argument.

you can't ask civilization to get out of your way just because you think you don't want it

I can't voice my beliefs? I can't vote according to my beliefs?

Now if something's in the common good

Who are the arbiters of common good?

even if you personally have issues with it and think it's unfair to you just because a tiny little buck out of your stash goes to it.

It's not about me. I don't make enough money to pay income taxes. I believe it is wrong for people to initiate aggression against other people.

George Ought to Help - YouTube

 

[Vylo]

Ok, so when someone has committed a crime, and is caught and sentenced for it and "put in a cage", against his will, that's violence to you??

Me and zoink might be on somewhat opposite sides of this argument, but it is most certainly violence, or the threat thereof. Try resisting arrest or attempt to break out of jail and see how it works out.

The unfortunate reality of humanity is that we often need the threat of violence to make us do what is in the interest of the greater good because we are at base, selfish beings, as are all living things. Being selfish is a reflex that is generally rewarded. In societies, however, being selfish is less beneficial in the long run, and these habits have to be broken by at least a vague threat of force.

 

[variant]

George Ought to Help - YouTube

Interesting, except the point where we live in a society where our rights to live mainly violence and coercion free lives is protected by that same government and that same majority of voters.

I think that the "no initiation of violence" folks need to think about how societies look without a representative government that is the primary initiator of violence.

I guess it is the sort of odd conclusion you get when you only look at one side of the problem. The video is an appeal to peoples sense of morality and civility against the government and taxation, when a society with a government and taxation probably nurtured that morality and civility in the first place.

 

[Vylo]

Interesting, except the point where we live in a society where our rights to live mainly violence and coercion free lives is protected by that same government and that same majority of voters.

I think that the "no initiation of violence" folks need to think about how societies look without a representative government that is the primary initiator of violence.

I guess it is the sort of odd conclusion you get when you only look at one side of the problem. The video is an appeal to peoples sense of morality and civility against the government and taxation, when a society with a government and taxation probably nurtured that morality and civility in the first place.

You make a good point. We put the government in the position of aggressor instead of ourselves personally to avoid bedlam.

 

[DaisyDay]

The issue generally isn't whether or not Christians should pay taxes. Usually the issue is whether people should advocate that politicians have the fruit of another persons labor taken under threat of violence. Some of us believe it's wrong to take the fruit of another person's labor under threat of violence so we vote and advocate that this practice be lessened and/or ceased.

Are you saying that if someone doesn't pay their taxes people with badges and guns won't come and take their property and/or put them in a cage? Or do you not consider those to be violent acts?

YI'm still unaware where I brought of stealing or theft.

[/quote]"Taking ... under threat of violence" is different to you somehow than "stealing"? That seems like a semantic game on your part. Just because you don't use the actual word doesn't mean the concept isn't loud and clear.