Big overture, little show
Typically, I've come to notice that when you engage in debates and/or arguments with individuals over certain issues, if your opposition begins to resort to personal attacks and/or deliberately misleading perceptions of your original argument ... it means they've already lost and have nothing left worth contributing to the conversation.
Case in point ... J. Paul Clark's letter to the editor which was written in response to my response to his earlier letter.
Let's see ... personal attacks?
The writer of the Dec. 18 letter is apparently like many who claim the name "Christian," who usually interpret and/or misquote the Bible to suit their agenda. Fact is, most people claiming to be Christian have never read more than 50 pages of the Bible, attend church maybe five times a year, and barely 3 percent of that group actually tithe with a church. These are actual statistics from the Association of Religion Data Archives.
How about deliberately misleading perceptions?
Early Christian activities were more in line with the commune concept of "to each according to his needs." Lenin used that same phrase to outline his concept of government.
According to Clark, anyone who disagrees with his narrow theological and ideological views is a hypocritical socialist. Wow. That's awesome.
But his own counterargument is confusing at best, terribly ineffective at worst.
He couches his argument based on the theory that publically funding social services via tax money is ultimately stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. That's an argument I don't agree with, but one that could be effectively made if actually done so in a logical way (and Xon has worked to do that at times).
However, after setting up this Robin Hood argument, he completely retreats from it by saying ...
If it can be determined that the will of the majority of the American people is to further social causes for the poor and uneducated, then our democratic representatives should follow the dictates of that majority. Our governmental representatives should never arbitrarily set themselves up as some sort of modern-day Robin Hood simply because they can identify a need in the community.
OK, either it's robbery in your book or it isn't. First off, it's a false choice to compare an individual stealing jackets from a department store and then heading off to the poorer districts of our community, tossing them from the back of a pick-up truck like manna from Heaven, to a democratically elected body of representatives passing laws regarding taxation and spending policies.
Second, Clark even concedes that if the majority of Americans support employing these tactics, then by all means go ahead and do so ... just don't have Congress act 'arbitrarily' in doing it. As long as the people want it, then it's permittable.
Which, I think it should be noted, was exactly my point that he wasted seven paragraphs disputing ... that our democratic system of government acts as a community which passes policies and laws to benefit the nation as desired by the people.
Case in point ... J. Paul Clark's letter to the editor which was written in response to my response to his earlier letter.
Let's see ... personal attacks?
The writer of the Dec. 18 letter is apparently like many who claim the name "Christian," who usually interpret and/or misquote the Bible to suit their agenda. Fact is, most people claiming to be Christian have never read more than 50 pages of the Bible, attend church maybe five times a year, and barely 3 percent of that group actually tithe with a church. These are actual statistics from the Association of Religion Data Archives.
How about deliberately misleading perceptions?
Early Christian activities were more in line with the commune concept of "to each according to his needs." Lenin used that same phrase to outline his concept of government.
According to Clark, anyone who disagrees with his narrow theological and ideological views is a hypocritical socialist. Wow. That's awesome.
But his own counterargument is confusing at best, terribly ineffective at worst.
He couches his argument based on the theory that publically funding social services via tax money is ultimately stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. That's an argument I don't agree with, but one that could be effectively made if actually done so in a logical way (and Xon has worked to do that at times).
However, after setting up this Robin Hood argument, he completely retreats from it by saying ...
If it can be determined that the will of the majority of the American people is to further social causes for the poor and uneducated, then our democratic representatives should follow the dictates of that majority. Our governmental representatives should never arbitrarily set themselves up as some sort of modern-day Robin Hood simply because they can identify a need in the community.
OK, either it's robbery in your book or it isn't. First off, it's a false choice to compare an individual stealing jackets from a department store and then heading off to the poorer districts of our community, tossing them from the back of a pick-up truck like manna from Heaven, to a democratically elected body of representatives passing laws regarding taxation and spending policies.
Second, Clark even concedes that if the majority of Americans support employing these tactics, then by all means go ahead and do so ... just don't have Congress act 'arbitrarily' in doing it. As long as the people want it, then it's permittable.
Which, I think it should be noted, was exactly my point that he wasted seven paragraphs disputing ... that our democratic system of government acts as a community which passes policies and laws to benefit the nation as desired by the people.
posted by Jmac at 8:06 AM
2 Comments:
it's also worth mentioning that Mr. Clarke clearly has no understanding of how the tribes of Israel were governed.
To say that the only prescribed punishment for any crime was death is both completely false and laughably ignorant for someone who goes on to criticize the lack of biblical scholarship of Christians of today.
Why has the LTE section of the ABH become so donimated by a handful of people who spew one falsehood after another? Is there a problem with not having enough letters from thoughtful and knowledgeable folks? I'm not inclined to write because I don't want to appear on the same page as the regular group of crazies for fear of guilt by association. ;-)
Al
I don't understand the comment that the early Christians were more in line with something Lenin may have approved of. Is that meant to slight the early Christian church (taking 'Lenin' to be the Mark of Evil, as 'Hitler' or 'Liberal' are sometimes used) or is it meant to vindicate Lenin (taking 'early Christian' to be the Mark of Good, as 'Reason' or 'Values' are sometimes used)?
If the idea is to not have socialist forms of government, then why note that Christian practices come substantially close in form to them? If the point is that we should be Christians wary of approaching some form of Leninism, then we've already given up the claim that Christian charity has nothing to do with a form of government. Rather, by admitting that Leninism has something in common with the practice of the early Christian church, then we are admitting that government should be influenced by Christians to do charity wisely.
Unless, I guess, the point is that it is impossible to have Christian charity in government practice without it becoming Leninism, which is perhaps most consistent with the first letter Clark wrote where he said Christians are to do charity through their church.
What I find curious is the implicit assumption in the idea of "cheating on one's taxes." In order to cheat the government of its tax money, you first have to acknowledge that the government has a legitimate and just interest in collecting your property in the first place. Otherwise, if the state is collecting your property by force, then it's not "cheating" but rather shrewdly holding on to what is one's own in the face of an overwhelming bully (and both Old and New Testaments testify time after time of being shrewd with one's money). So, if Clark is going to say that not paying one's taxes is as immoral as blatant theft, then Clark is assuming the state is free to take the property of the people, the same assumption needed for any collectivization.
In that respect, Clark already is a socialist: he just differs on the extent the state can take and what the state can do with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home