10 Reasons Jesus Would Never Win The American Evangelical Vote

[Sultan Of Swing]

I suggest this idea that taxation is "forced giving" is a uniquely American idea. Here in Canada, we are taxed much more than you are and I never hear this kind of argument. I know some Europeans and I think the idea has little currency there, either.

It isn't an 'American idea', it's just fact. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you will be arrested and thrown in jail. Doesn't matter how you paint it, you can't avoid the ugly side of it when you refuse to pay it.

 

[grandvizier1006]

It isn't an 'American idea', it's just fact. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you will be arrested and thrown in jail. Doesn't matter how you paint it, you can't avoid the ugly side of it when you refuse to pay it.

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine heard a sermon on theft last Sunday. Tax evasion can count as "theft" in a spirtual sense, because you are stealing from what the government by law is entitled to.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine heard a sermon on theft last Sunday. Tax evasion can count as "theft" in a spirtual sense, because you are stealing from what the government by law is entitled to.

No matter how much one disagrees with a government's tax policy we must still respect the rule of law and obey earthly governments, of course, tax evasion is wrong.

Now tax avoidance (also known as being tax 'efficient') on the other hand is a different matter, and is simply reducing the money you pay to government by legal means, which I don't find that much problem with. It's the fault of the government for not closing loopholes, not the individual for using legal methods to reduce the amount of money he or she loses.

 

[Pwnerer]

They certainly do get to vote on the matter of taxes!

No. No, they do not. They get to vote on the matter of representatives, who express a general sentiment on a plethora of issues, one of which is taxation.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No. No, they do not. They get to vote on the matter of representatives, who express a general sentiment on a plethora of issues, one of which is taxation.

And often times we find ourselves voting for the 'best of a bad bunch', which can hardly mean we are voting for each and every one of their policies.

 

[Pwnerer]

UNINHABITED??? Are you kidding? That is the most unbelievable, arrogant, uneducated comment I have ever heard (read).

You think Plymouth Rock was some bustling metropolis? I suppose that they should have just gone to the grocery store, rather than starving, eh?

Then there's the land the natives sold to the Dutch for a bag of beads, or beans, or whatever: they laughed because they figured the Dutch would all starve to death. The colonists had no expropriation office they could go to. They had to generate wealth, literally out of the ground around them.

It's not arrogant to point this out, and it's certainly not uneducated. I imagine by arrogant you were putting the donkey in assume and assuming that I was some neo-nazi left wing extremist, tacitly implying that the natives don't count as human. Well, that says more about your view of things than it does mine. You know, sometimes what is presumed is far more damning than what is said.

 

[Pwnerer]

And often times we find ourselves voting for the 'best of a bad bunch', which can hardly mean we are voting for each and every one of their policies.

Amen to that. Trying to discern the lighter between pot and kettle -- commonly called 'picking the lesser evil' -- I don't think it's at all reasonable to call that having a say on the issue of taxation.

 

[Pwnerer]

I hope no one takes that remark seriously.

Emmm, okay

 

[PsychoeDial]

You think Plymouth Rock was some bustling metropolis? I suppose that they should have just gone to the grocery store, rather than starving, eh?

Then there's the land the natives sold to the Dutch for a bag of beads, or beans, or whatever: they laughed because they figured the Dutch would all starve to death. The colonists had no expropriation office they could go to. They had to generate wealth, literally out of the ground around them.

It's not arrogant to point this out, and it's certainly not uneducated. I imagine by arrogant you were putting the donkey in assume and assuming that I was some neo-nazi left wing extremist, tacitly implying that the natives don't count as human. Well, that says more about your view of things than it does mine. You know, sometimes what is presumed is far more damning than what is said.

To the contrary, your prior remark did demonstrate a great lack of knowledge.
You said, in part and that which is at issue here is in bold and underlined:

This whole country has its origins in some people hopping on a boat, crossing the ocean, and landing on a hunk of land that was, for practical purposes,uninhabited.

This country was not uninhabited. The Buffalo were so plentiful that they dotted the grasses so as to make it appear as if the land was black due to their numbers.
And that's just one animal that inhabited this land.
Of course, it was also inhabited by indigenous peoples that the whites call Indians.

Therefore your remarks as I noted were not to be taken seriously. And they remain as such. In fact, I don't think you actually mean them to be taken seriously. Because no one with an inkling of even elementary school education would have ever said this land was uninhabited. And that's exactly what you meant to convey when you said, for all practical purposes it was.


The part of your remarks quoted above demonstrate even more that your remarks are not to be taken seriously.
Because natives couldn't sell their land for a bag of beads, as you put it, if this land was uninhabited.

And Neo-Nazi is a Godwin's violation.


"for practical purposes,uninhabited."

And just to note, anyone know the chat slang for 'owned'? Pwned? Not a far reach for that screen name as one who seeks to post to accomplish that end I'd think. Especially making statements like that. Just a thought worth this edit.

 

[Pwnerer]

To the contrary, your prior remark did demonstrate a great lack of knowledge.
You said, in part and that which is at issue here is in bold and underlined:

This whole country has its origins in some people hopping on a boat, crossing the ocean, and landing on a hunk of land that was, for practical purposes,uninhabited.

This country was not uninhabited. The Buffalo were so plentiful that they dotted the grasses so as to make it appear as if the land was black due to their numbers.
And that's just one animal that inhabited this land.
Of course, it was also inhabited by indigenous peoples that the whites call Indians.

Therefore your remarks as I noted were not to be taken seriously. And they remain as such. In fact, I don't think you actually mean them to be taken seriously. Because no one with an inkling of even elementary school education would have ever said this land was uninhabited. And that's exactly what you meant to convey when you said, for all practical purposes it was.


The part of your remarks quoted above demonstrate even more that your remarks are not to be taken seriously.
Because natives couldn't sell their land for a bag of beads, as you put it, if this land was uninhabited.

And Neo-Nazi is a Godwin's violation.


"for practical purposes,uninhabited."

Ah I see well, since you're going to set me straight on what my own intentions are, I suppose there's no point in trying to clarify or come to an understanding. I mean, you obviously understand my own intent better than I do, so it's a moot point.

Well, I hope you enjoyed your condescending, Pharisaical screed there. I also hope you enjoy my ignore list.

 

[chandraclaws]

People do generate wealth on their own. This whole country has its origins in some people hopping on a boat, crossing the ocean, and landing on a hunk of land that was, for practical purposes,uninhabited.

I just don't get why people insist on being regressive and are so obsessed with taking what other people have.

Like what the colonists took from the Native Americans? Their land, their livlelihood, their culture and their lives? I guess it doesn't matter though, since as you say the land was not inhabited, they didn't really exist.

 

[Pwnerer]

Like what the colonists took from the Native Americans? Their land, their livlelihood, their culture and their lives? I guess it doesn't matter though, since as you say the land was not inhabited, they didn't really exist.

Hello. The Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock didn't take land from anyone. They set up in an uninhabited area. Stop demonizing them. Or, maybe you have some hatred for them?

Sent from my STUDIO ENERGY 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Peel]

Like what the colonists took from the Native Americans? Their land, their livlelihood, their culture and their lives? I guess it doesn't matter though, since as you say the land was not inhabited, they didn't really exist.

Some tribes willingly traded with the colonists and some tribes went to war against other tribes in order to gain land. There were good and bad players on both sides, not to mention that the entire history of Europe is based on wars and kingdoms fighting for land. It's not a concept new to America.

If you decide you want to give up your land and possessions to someone of Native American decent then go right ahead. I'm ready to see some Democrats start leading by example.

 

[expos4ever]

Deleted own post.

 

[expos4ever]

It isn't an 'American idea', it's just fact. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you will be arrested and thrown in jail. Doesn't matter how you paint it, you can't avoid the ugly side of it when you refuse to pay it.

I stand by my position. Yes, if you don't pay your taxes you do go to jail. But it is only in the USA, I suggest where taxation is seen as stealing by a reasonable chunk of the population. The reality is that if you do not pay your taxes, you go to jail because you are stealing. What are you stealing?

The use of the expensive public goods other taxpayer have paid for: roads, airports, communications systems, the police, the military, etc. etc.

In not paying your taxes, you are not paying your share for the provision of these public goods. And that is clearly immoral and you should go to jail.

 

[expos4ever]

Now tax avoidance (also known as being tax 'efficient') on the other hand is a different matter, and is simply reducing the money you pay to government by legal means, which I don't find that much problem with. It's the fault of the government for not closing loopholes, not the individual for using legal methods to reduce the amount of money he or she loses.

I don't think an obedient Christian can really use this argument without more qualification. We all have an obligation to pay our "fair" share of the bill for the public goods our tax dollars buy - medical care (in most countries), roads, airports, communication systems, etc. Even if you use "legal" means to effectively avoid paying your fair share, that is not supportable from a Christian perspective. Consider the Panama Papers news event naming rich people who have used perfectly legal means to park untold riches offshore and avoid paying taxes. I am not at all sure of this but I would bet that regular folk cannot use this mechanism (again, I could be wrong). If so, the rich are taking advantage of the rest of us in avoiding paying their share since we cannot take advantage of the same loophole.

 

[Armoured]

It isn't an 'American idea', it's just fact. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you will be arrested and thrown in jail. Doesn't matter how you paint it, you can't avoid the ugly side of it when you refuse to pay it.

Render unto Caesar. Really kind of the final word. Or do you know better than Jesus?

 

[chandraclaws]

Some tribes willingly traded with the colonists and some tribes went to war against other tribes in order to gain land. There were good and bad players on both sides, not to mention that the entire history of Europe is based on wars and kingdoms fighting for land. It's not a concept new to America.

If you decide you want to give up your land and possessions to someone of Native American decent then go right ahead. I'm ready to see some Democrats start leading by example.

I don't see how you can downplay the devastation that was done to the native inhabitants of this land.

 

[chandraclaws]

Hello. The Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock didn't take land from anyone. They set up in an uninhabited area. Stop demonizing them. Or, maybe you have some hatred for them?

Sent from my STUDIO ENERGY 2 using Tapatalk

The arrival of Europeans on the east cost of North America occurred not in 1620, but well before. French and Dutch fishermen and settlers had been in the area as early as 1614, and had been responsible for kidnapping Indians, selling them into slavery, and maliciously infecting them with smallpox.

In 1620, the pilgrims arrived on the east coast and within two days they had received assistance from the local Wampanoag Indian tribe: The pilgrims stole their stored crops, dug up graves for dishes and pots, and took many native people as prisoners and forced them to teach crop planting and survival techniques to the colonists in their new environment.
Rense.com The Dark Historical Roots of Our Thanksgiving

And that was just the beginning.

 

[Lords Man]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/former...uld-never-win-the-american-evangelical-vote/?

Honestly, I miss the days when being Evangelical meant you were a bearer of “good news.” I miss the days when this term meant you believed in the inspiration of Scripture, and that you believed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ...but these days? These days “Evangelical” is a political term where not even Jesus Christ himself could win their vote.
Benjamin L. Corey

I think that this blogger needs a renewed education in what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches.