What America needs is another Party

[2tim_215]

I thought exactly the same. It doesn't take a great deal of historical or biblical understanding to realize that the Sadducees were the ultra conservatives and reactionaries bought and paid for by the establishment. The Pharisees on the other hand were the most liberal and progressive. 2 tim seems to be a little confused over 1st century Judaean politics.

I'm afraid you have it the exact opposite, my friend.

 

[Allandavid]

What you need is another president...

 

[JackRT]

I'm afraid you have it the exact opposite, my friend.

You are not afraid that I have it wrong, you are afraid that you have it wrong.

 

[Belk]

Is it really a new party we need (been there, done that, didn't work)? Or would a return to the original parties be more in tune to our societal needs? Let's face it, the democratic party has been highjacked so far left one cannot truly delineate it from a socialist movement...and the republican party has similarly moved so far left that it more resembles "my father's democratic party" than the democratic party currently does!

Wait what?

 

[2tim_215]

You are not afraid that I have it wrong, you are afraid that you have it wrong.

I was trying to be nice about it, but you're definitely wrong. Not sure where you got that idea. Sadducees were the Liberals. Didn't believe in the resurrection.
Sad·du·cee
ˈsajəˌsē,ˈsadyəˌsē/
noun
plural noun: Sadducees

1. a member of a Jewish sect or party of the time of Jesus Christ that denied the resurrection of the dead, the existence of spirits, and the obligation of oral tradition, emphasizing acceptance of the written Law alone.

Pharisees were the rulers and the ones who stuck to the law (legalists);
Phar·i·see
ˈferəˌsē/
noun

1. a member of an ancient Jewish sect, distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law, and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity.
   • a self-righteous person; a hypocrite.

 

[JackRT]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.


Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.


The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.


In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.


Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.


About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.


This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

 

[ananda]

When I look at both the Republicans and the Democrats I don't think that either part offers a viable candidate. last Presidential election, Hillary was a horrible choice and Trump was too much of an unknown. I look at both parties and see them from a biblical standpoint as the Pharisees (Republicans or Conservatives) and Sadducees (Democrats or Liberals) and either not much of a choice. What we need is an Independent Party where whoever it is who runs is not beholden to either groups ideology. Then maybe we can elect someone who's going to meet the peoples needs. In any case, that's my personal opinion.

There are other choices. Emotional, team mentality prevents other parties from gaining any significant traction.

 

[jayem]

Agreed. But first, we need to end private financing of our elections. Otherwise, the new party nominees will be expected to raise millions of dollars from the very interest who are funding the Republican and Democratic parties....

That's certainly part of the answer. We have to eliminate super pacs, dark money, and all such corruptions. But we also need to reform how candidates are nominated and elected. Instead of separate party primaries, each state should hold a single primary election where all candidates from all parties run against each other. For each office, the voters use a ranked voting system. The 2 candidates who are most preferred then run against each other in the general election. The final nominees could be from the same party, or different parties. It's totally up to the voters. The same should apply to Presidential elections. There should be a national primary election several months before the November election to choose the 2 most preferred candidates. Who then pick running mates, and their campaigns proceed as they do now. With the exception that the President is elected by direct popular vote. No more obsolete Electoral College. Every vote counts. So the nominees must have a platform that appeals to as many voters as possible in all the states. Parties can still hold conventions and designate their preferred candidate, but the final say as to who runs and who is elected is totally up to the voters.

These reforms empower the people and diminish the influence of political parties. Parties tend to be under the sway of their more ideologically extreme activists. And I don't want either doctrinaire liberals or conservatives in office. My goal is to have elected officials who are moderate, pragmatic, and flexible. And definitely not beholden to "bases." I would hope that giving electoral power to the voting population as a whole can achieve this.

 

[2tim_215]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.


Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

Being a Rabbi doesn't mean you were necessarily a Pharisee and Jesus sure wasn't.
Rabbi G4461 ῥαββί rhabbi hrab-bee'
Root: of Hebrew origin <H7227> with pronominal suffix
Cross Reference: TDNT - 6:961,982
Vine's Words: Master, Rabbi
English Words used in KJV:
Master (Christ) 9
Rabbi (Christ) 5
rabbi 3
[Total Count: 17]
of Hebrew origin [<H7227> (rab) with pronoun suffix]; my master, i.e. Rabbi, as an official title of honor :- Master, Rabbi.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.


In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

What about Mary Magdalene? That sounds more like the Liberals (Sadducees) would do.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

Nicodemus seems to be the only Pharisee who'd fall in this category (plus Joseph of Arimathea probably who I believe was part of the Sanhedrin). And of course, Gamaliel (who mentored Paul before he was converted) was the high priest which most be that Paul was being groomed for prior to his conversion while he was going sround persecuting Christians (under Pharisaic orders).

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

After the crucifixion while persecuting Christians who would turn to the Gentiles.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

Both Pharisees and Sadducees can be viewed very negatively for obvious reasons although it seems that Jesus had a lot more bad things about the Pharisees and was always having confrontations with them. I guess you want to say that God's word was tarnished because (and I'm not giving any props to the Sadducees) but the bad acts of the Pharisees and their run-ins with Jesus are littered all over scripture. What did Jesus mean when He said "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees"? And was it who was prepared to stone Mary Magdalene when Jesus intervened? Those are just two instances but there's many more. Jesus was constantly correcting them. I don't see where they've been treated unfairly and are currently extinct. Rabbis are not Pharisees, especially today.

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed. But first, we need to end private financing of our elections. Otherwise, the new party nominees will be expected to raise millions of dollars from the very interest who are funding the Republican and Democratic parties....

Agree.

We also need, term limits.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The Libertarian Party is here and on the ballot in every state. And it is neither far left nor far right.

Libertarianism is as far right as one can go short of anarchy.

 

[Albion]

Libertarianism is as far right as one can go short of anarchy.

No, its not. And anarchy is the far LEFT, not the far right, anyway.

But lets be clear that I was not intent upon promoting the party, but just answering the question about the need for a third or new party.

With the Libertarian Party, there already is one and it is on the ballot in all states. Most minor parties, you know, are incorporated but seldom get to put candidates on a ballot.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What america needs is a political system that makes other parties viable. THEN other parties will automatically follow.

There is no Constitutional impediment to any party becoming viable. So the system itself is not the problem. Personally,I would favor a Constitutional amendment outlawing political parties altogether.
I can think of nothing good that has come from political partisanship.

 

[Albion]

There is no Constitutional impediment to any party becoming viable. So the system itself is not the problem.

Actually, it is. The Constitution doesn't prohibit political parties, that's true, because it doesn't say anything about them. However, the two major parties have built a large number of procedural roadblocks in state law that make it extremely difficult for any other political party to succeed or even to function.

Whether or not anybody favors a third or more parties, the big two have pretty much--although not completely--locked them out of an equal chance to participate.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, its not. And anarchy is the far LEFT, not the far right, anyway.

But lets be clear that I was not intent upon promoting the party, but just answering the question about the need for a third or new party.

With the Libertarian Party, there already is one and it is on the ballot in all states. Most minor parties, you know, are incorporated but seldom get to put candidates on a ballot.

You are working from a left right dichotomy very different than my own. From my perspective,
and I am not alone in this so don't think it is idiosyncratic and therefore simply dismiss it,
the far left is characterized by complete government control (uber socialist totalitarianism as in Fascism and Communism) while the far right is no government control art all ( anarchy) . On that continuum Libertarianism would be the farthest right philosophy short of anarchy. Perhaps you could explain your dichotomy between left and right where anarchy is a far leftist thing. To me anarchy is the opposite of totalitarianism so I cannot see how anarchy and totalitarian forms of
Socialism could both occupy the same side of the spectrum.

 

[Albion]

You are working from a left right dichotomy very different than my own perspective,

Apparently.

I am not alone in this so don't think it is idiosyncratic and therefore simply dismiss it,
the far left is characterized by complete government control (uber socialist totalitarianism as in Fascism and Communism) while the far right is no government control art all ( anarchy) .

Well, there may be others who share your perspective with you, but the system that almost everyone else uses has the spectrum as I used it. Of course, some people favor a circular or square grid instead of a two dimensional line spectrum of Left to Right.

In any case, however, the terms Left and Right relate to this standard perspective, so if anyone puts forth his own scheme, no one will know what he's saying if he uses Right and Left in his own way.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Actually, it is. The Constitution doesn't prohibit political parties, that's true, because it doesn't say anything about them. However, the two major parties have built a large number of procedural roadblocks in state law that make it extremely difficult for any other political party to succeed or even to function.

Whether or not anybody favors a third or more parties, the big two have pretty much--although not completely--locked them out of an equal chance to participate.

The roadblocks they have built are not Constitutional roadblocks but simple procedural ones
not requirements of the Constitution. So I repeat the actual system is perfectly fine. The detailed gaming of the system is what is amiss. Changing a complete system because someone has corrupted access to that system is not IMO the way to go. Especially seeing as the ones that would be in charge of the changes would most likely be those that corrupted access and now wish to replace a perfectly fine system with one that is inherently corrupt or those that wished to not only replace the current players but also replace the perfectly fine system with a corrupt system of their own with themselves in power.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Apparently.


Well, there may be others who share your perspective with you, but the system that almost everyone else uses has the spectrum as I used it. Of course, some people favor a circular or square grid instead of a two dimensional line spectrum of Left to Right.

In any case, however, the terms Left and Right relate to this standard perspective, so if anyone puts forth his own scheme, no one will know what he's saying if he uses Right and Left in his own way.

So would you explain this standard perspective to me? As I said to this point I cannot see how it makes sense that total government control and no government control are both considered to be on the same side of the spectrum.

 

[FenderTL5]

 

[Kaon]

When I look at both the Republicans and the Democrats I don't think that either party offers a viable candidate. last Presidential election, Hillary was a horrible choice and Trump was too much of an unknown. I look at both parties and see them from a biblical standpoint as the Pharisees (Republicans or Conservatives) and Sadducees (Democrats or Liberals) and either not much of a choice. What we need is an Independent Party where whoever it is who runs is not beholden to either groups ideology. Then maybe we can elect someone who's going to meet the peoples needs. In any case, that's my personal opinion.

This is an interesting thing. My knee jerk reaction was to say, "America need ZERO parties, certainly not any more ways to divide and dilute the corruption over more minds."

And, then I remember how "no parties" quickly dives into totalitarianism. But, the complete and utter pollution of political parties is a symptom of the underlying problem.


Humans don't care about each other. That is the problem. There are 7,200,000,000 walking around this world with the illusion of global connectivity; humanity is spoiled. There is no centralized interest amongst humans for overall preservation. We say it as a soundbite, but there wouldn't be a justification for the atrocities committed if we really cared. We never believe one person can change the world until it is our world that needs changing.

But that is the point, we are all in this together. What I just said likely would be taken as hippie claptrap. It may even be deemed ridiulous, but it is a cliche of prescience that humanity is so spoiled with itself that it doesn't have to care about anyone else.