Why a good, Bible-believing Christian can vote Democratic

[rjs330]

Yeah, crazy things like workplace safety laws and public schools. What will they think of next?

And you have evidence of course that conservatives are against work place safety and public schools. That we want the work places to be unsafe and all schools to be private.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

And you have evidence of course that conservatives are against work place safety and public schools. That we want the work places to be unsafe and all schools to be private.

Well, since you bring it up, yes.

Well, not exactly against workplace safety. . .just against writing regulations about it. Conservatives tend to believe that business will do the right thing if left alone, and will not allow the profit motive to corrupt their decisions.

I also have evidence that conservative Christians are opposed to the idea of public education, since it is Plank #10 of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. I know this because I was taught it.

Yes, there is all kinds of evidence for those attitudes that you describe. Regarding schools, and regarding the fact that businesses will opt for the less-safe choice if being safer negatively impacts the bottom line.

So, again. . .yes, there is actual hard evidence.

 

[rjs330]

The problem here is language, not politics. There are some parallels with the John Birch Society back in the 50s and 60s fussing that America was not a “democracy” because “democracy” did not mean the same thing as “republic.” You could argue that they were technically right, but it didn’t matter; people will use the word “democracy” the way they want to use it.

It is somewhat the same with “socialism.” Technically it may be a synonym for “communism,” but that is no longer the way the word is uniformly used, especially in Europe. The classical meaning is generally intended by conservative, anti-communist people and by hard-core, old-time socialists. The more modern meaning is generally used by younger people who really don’t even know the precise definition of communism. It’s the opponents of communism who are usually the ones who can recite the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto from memory.

That web site you referenced does seem to be an old-time socialist web site. Some of the planks are definitely in line with modern communism. For example:

The Socialist Party stands for the abolition of every form of domination and exploitation. Yeah, that’s classic communist campaign language.

Social ownership and democratic control of productive resources. Again, that is Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto, which calls for the abolition of private ownership of property. No important Democrat is pushing for that. Not even Bernie Sanders (see below).

The Socialist Party stands for. . .focusing on production for need not profit. The abolition of the profit motive is definitely a Marxist goal. Again, no important Democrat is pushing that.

So, this site by The Socialist Party USA is pushing classical socialism/communism. But this is not what Democrats believe and practice. Let’s look at just two informative quotes:

Bill Gates: ““Socialism used to mean that the state controlled the means of production, and a lot of people who are promoting socialism aren’t using that classic definition. . .Most people really aren’t arguing against capitalism. There may be a few, but most people are just saying that the taxes should change.”

The World Socialist web site: “As a comparison of Sanders’ positions to these core conceptions of socialism makes clear, his “socialism” is a ruse to prevent the emergence of the real thing.”


The bottom line is that when the term “socialist” is used in campaign literature, it is used to scare, not inform. It is the mirror image of using “Nazi,” which is equally untrue.

I didn't say that the Democrats supported ALL of the socialist ideas. In fact I said they support MANY of the socialist ideas. And the truth is they do.

No socialist is used accurately because the ideas are socialist ideas. As I have proven. And Nazi was given as a description to those who had actually not espoused any Nazi ideas. Yet Democrats car propose socialist ideas and then try and tell us they are not actually socialist ideas.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I didn't say that the Democrats supported ALL of the socialist ideas. In fact I said they support MANY of the socialist ideas. And the truth is they do.

No socialist is used accurately because the ideas are socialist ideas. As I have proven. And Nazi was given as a description to those who had actually not espoused any Nazi ideas. Yet Democrats car propose socialist ideas and then try and tell us they are not actually socialist ideas.

Well, here again what you are saying is. . .absolutely correct. Democrats do support some ideas that Marx had. For example, Marx argued for a graduated income tax. So do Democrats. Marx argued for free public education for all children. So do Democrats.

The fallacy here is the implied criticism that if Marx espoused it, it must be bad. By that reasoning, if I could prove that Adolf Hitler loved dogs and children (I don't have proof, but I suspect that he actually did), then I shouldn't, since, you know, Hitler believed it. And that would be silly.

But looking at The Communist Manifesto, the most critical part was government ownership and control of the means of production. (No private enterprise allowed.) That was the main thrust of Planks 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7. So the Soviet Union had Aeroflot; the United States had Eastern, TWA, Pan Am, and others. The Soviet Union had Tass and Pravda, we had the New York Times, the Kansas City Star, and hundreds of others. The Soviet government did in fact own and control all the means of production; the United States still has private enterprise, though not unfettered private enterprise. And there is not a single Democrat of any importance who is arguing for a Soviet(or Venezuelan)-style economy. Not one.

 

[rjs330]

Well, since you bring it up, yes.

Well, not exactly against workplace safety. . .just against writing regulations about it. Conservatives tend to believe that business will do the right thing if left alone, and will not allow the profit motive to corrupt their decisions.

I also have evidence that conservative Christians are opposed to the idea of public education, since it is Plank #10 of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. I know this because I was taught it.

Yes, there is all kinds of evidence for those attitudes that you describe. Regarding schools, and regarding the fact that businesses will opt for the less-safe choice if being safer negatively impacts the bottom line.

So, again. . .yes, there is actual hard evidence.

Please provide the evidence. And do so fairly. I could provide evidence there are Democrats that are marxists. Does that mean Democrats are Marxist? Of course not. If you find a conservative that says there shouldn't be any work place safety laws does that mean conservatives are against work place safety? No if course not.

No I want evidence of a conserted effort to oppose work place safety and have it be part of a larger cry to end workplace safety laws.

Same thing for public schools. Provide the evidence that Republicans want to end public schools and their proposals to do so. That they want to have all schools be private.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Please provide the evidence. And do so fairly. I could provide evidence there are Democrats that are marxists. Does that mean Democrats are Marxist? Of course not. If you find a conservative that says there shouldn't be any work place safety laws does that mean conservatives are against work place safety? No if course not.

No I want evidence of a concerted effort to oppose work place safety and have it be part of a larger cry to end workplace safety laws.

I didn't say they wanted to end workplace safety. But I did say that they wanted to end workplace safety regulations, because they do.

Same thing for public schools. Provide the evidence that Republicans want to end public schools and their proposals to do so. That they want to have all schools be private.

The school thing is not mainline Republican, but it is common among Christian school leaders, who tend to be strong Republican supporters. Perhaps the feeling was stronger 40-some years ago when I was a new teacher. As I said, I was taught it (and, at the time, I bought it.) But of course that is anecdotal evidence, not statistical evidence. So I can only say that the attitude exists, not that it is a dominant attitude.

About workplace safety, that’s a little easier. Just go to Google and search for "Republicans and workplace safety." What you will see is a multitude of articles describing how the current administration is seeking to seriously reduce funding to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Read them with an open mind.

Then, if you want the other side, there are many places to go, but I like the Heritage Foundation web site. They are pretty strongly on record for wanting to roll back federal regulations and allow business to do the right thing without interference. They make some good arguments. My main rebuttal to what they say is that it is “ivory tower” thinking. That is, when you read their arguments, they often sound good and seem to make sense. But just because something “makes sense” doesn’t mean it will actually work that way in the real world. (Did Wells Fargo do the right thing when it was opening fake accounts without the customers’ knowledge? Did Enron do the right thing when it began to hurt financially? Does your cable TV provider always do the right thing for you?) But go ahead and read both sides (as I always like to do). Then make up your own mind.

 

[Richard T]

The fact that there isn't a 100% perfect way to game the Christian approach has little bearing on the point I was responding to. Remember the implication was that it was non-believers who had motivation to be immoral if there's no afterlife. But what this really shows is that people who believe in the afterlife have a good reason to be the ones to actually do so, even if they have to be a bit cautious with the implementation.



Sounds like salvation through works to me.

Saved by grace, a gift, but if you want the full benefit of God on this earth and the rewards in heaven you have to walk in it.

 

[rjs330]

I didn't say they wanted to end workplace safety. But I did say that they wanted to end workplace safety regulations, because they do.



The school thing is not mainline Republican, but it is common among Christian school leaders, who tend to be strong Republican supporters. Perhaps the feeling was stronger 40-some years ago when I was a new teacher. As I said, I was taught it (and, at the time, I bought it.) But of course that is anecdotal evidence, not statistical evidence. So I can only say that the attitude exists, not that it is a dominant attitude.

About workplace safety, that’s a little easier. Just go to Google and search for "Republicans and workplace safety." What you will see is a multitude of articles describing how the current administration is seeking to seriously reduce funding to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Read them with an open mind.

Then, if you want other side, there are many places to go, but I like the Heritage Foundation web site. They are pretty strongly on record for wanting to roll back federal regulations and allow business to do the right thing without interference. They make some good arguments. My main rebuttal to what they say is that it is “ivory tower” thinking. That is, when you read their arguments, they often sound good and seem to make sense. But just because something “makes sense” doesn’t mean it will actually work that way in the real world. (Did Wells Fargo do the right thing when it was opening fake accounts without the customers’ knowledge? Did Enron do the right thing when it began to hurt financially? Does your cable TV provider always do the right thing for you?) But go ahead and read both sides (as I always like to do). Then make up your own mind.

The problem with all of this is the regulation rules. You see, the Democrats love regulation. And they never see an added regulation they didn't like. I have never heard of one saying we are over regulated. The thing is we can have and need regulations. But we don't need as many as we have. Before OSHA started workplace injuries and deaths had been plummeting. After regulation they continued to descend. And regulations have been increasing since the 70s. Our point is do we NEED as many as we have? Is it necessary? Most of the articles on the net are written with the "sky is falling" mindset. And 99% of those hate anything and everything Trump.and the Republicans to. So there's no surprise there.

Republicans don't think we need higher emission standards. They are good enough. But if we do t support that, we are trying to kill everyone. That's how it's portrayed. If we want to cut back on some safety regulations, well we want workers to die on the job. Utter nonsense. We don't live in. The early 1900s anymore. Business now knows the profitability of keeping workers safe. You don't make more money by killing or injuring your people.

I get the fact people want safety. Okay, we do to. It's not an all or nothing proposition. But that's how Democrats portray it.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

The problem with all of this is the regulation rules. You see, the Democrats love regulation. And they never see an added regulation they didn't like.

There's that famous quote again. Which, you will note, is only an assertion, so worded as to be nothing more than a zinger. So it expresses an attitude, not anything that has to do with actual facts.

Before OSHA started, workplace injuries and deaths had been plummeting. After regulation they continued to descend. And regulations have been increasing since the 70s. Our point is do we NEED as many as we have?

Now this point actually deals with a possible fact. Were injuries declining before OSHA? Is it possible that the continuing reduction in injuries would have been just the same if OSHA had never existed? Possibly. So I did a quick check. I had a hard time finding statistics earlier than 1980, but I did find one graph that was interesting. It's not about OSHA, but there's one point on the graph, the passage of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, that shows a dramatic drop in coal mine injuries after the passage of the Act. Lives were saved because of that regulation. (I plan to look up more data on historical trends regarding workplace safety. I'll let you know what I find.)

I get the fact people want safety. Okay, we do too. It's not an all or nothing proposition. But that's how Democrats portray it.

Again, the negative way you portray Democratic attitudes suggest that you think it's mostly Democrats who are being unreasonable, never Republicans. Me, I think that in a well-functioning system, the Democratic extreme desire to change things nicely balances out the Republican extreme resistance to any change. The result is just about right unless one party gets too much of an advantage.
Besides, is it really accurate to say that we all really want safety? That's debatable. Cars up until the early 1960s did not have seat belts. Industry did not want to talk about seat belts, because talking about "safety" made auto execs uncomfortable. Now auto sales pitches are all about safety, because everybody loves safety today. But that wasn't always true. The federal government led the way on that issue.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

[Another accidental post, edited away.]

 

[rjs330]

There's that famous quote again. Which, you will note, is only an assertion, so worded as to be nothing more than a zinger. So it expresses an attitude, not anything that has to do with actual facts.


Now this point actually deals with a possible fact. Were injuries declining before OSHA? Is it possible that the continuing reduction in injuries would have been just the same if OSHA had never existed? Possibly. So I did a quick check. I had a hard time finding statistics earlier than 1980, but I did find one graph that was interesting. It's not about OSHA, but there's one point on the graph, the passage of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, that shows a dramatic drop in coal mine injuries after the passage of the Act. Lives were saved because of that regulation. (I plan to look up more data on historical trends regarding workplace safety. I'll let you know what I find.)


Again, the negative way you portray Democratic attitudes suggest that you think it's mostly Democrats who are being unreasonable, never Republicans. Me, I think that in a well-functioning system, the Democratic extreme desire to change things nicely balances out the Republican extreme resistance to any change. The result is just about right unless one party gets too much of an advantage.
Besides, is it really accurate to say that we all really want safety? That's debatable. Cars up until the early 1960s did not have seat belts. Industry did not want to talk about seat belts, because talking about "safety" made auto execs uncomfortable. Now auto sales pitches are all about safety, because everybody loves safety today. But that wasn't always true. The federal government led the way on that issue.

I can't actually think of a regulation that the Democrats didn't support. Maybe you can think of one. And regulations keep increasing and increasing. It always seems to happen under Democrats. So it might be a singer, but I can't think of anytime they said"that's good enough."

Yes things were decreasing dramatically before OSHA. I think industries were absolutely getting better with everything. And again you point to a regulation regarding mines. As if we don't support that. I'm glad something was done to help that along. It's good to save people's lives.

We ALL support safety regulations. We just think there are too many.

Like I said, all you have to do is read those articles you mentioned and you will see what I am talking about. They all cry the sky is falling and make it sound like it's all horrible, the worst thing ever.

And I've seen some very unreasonable Republicans and unreasonable Republican ideas. For example, I've heard some say there should be no regulation on guns at all. Insane people should be allowed to have guns. Or Evolution should not be taught in schools.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, OSHA, terrible program. What Democratic President signed that into law?

 

[rjs330]

Yes, OSHA, terrible program. What Democratic President signed that into law?

The issue is not OSHA directly. The problem is over regulation. Once the Feds get a Dept of Whatever, they regulate regulate regulate. More and more and more. It's never good enough. And they are used to punish or destroy certain industries or entities. Take a look at what Obama admitted about energy and coal.

If OSHA was built as a consultation dept, helping industry to be safer by providing guidance, inspections and findings which could be made public, then I think we'd have something to work with. They could be involved in research. This would allow workers to decide if they wanted to work at certain jobs and where the higher risks are. And if a company failed to follow recommendations, if someone was injured because they didn't, they could have the pants sued off them.

Take a look at the EPA.
Redirect Notice

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I can't actually think of a regulation that the Democrats didn't support.

That seems reasonable, since it's usually the Republicans who don't want new regulations, and the Democrats who do want them. Naturally, Democrats will support regulations that were their idea.

Yes things were decreasing dramatically before OSHA. I think industries were absolutely getting better with everything. And again you point to a regulation regarding mines. As if we don't support that. I'm glad something was done to help that along. It's good to save people's lives.

I'm glad that you don't believe that business will always do the right thing with no prodding. I get the impression that The Heritage Foundation almost does believe that. I'm pretty sure that Rand Paul believes it, and he counts as an influential Republican.

We ALL support safety regulations. We just think there are too many.

The question of how many is too many is exactly what the democratic process is designed to answer. Somewhere between the extremes of no regulation and full government ownership is a sweet spot. I think the sweet spot is a little further left than you do, but as long as we discuss the matter by using facts and not propaganda, we'll probably arrive at a reasonable compromise.

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is now closed. Please read the forum Terms and Christian Forum Rules in regards to promoting abortion.

MOD HAT OFF​