Monday, December 29, 2008

Politics, Faith and Homosexuality

So... I'm still stuck here. I put everything on the back burner through Christmas and tried not to think about any of it, unsuccessfully. The truth is that I am a bit of a people pleaser. I want everyone to be happy and to get along. I want to stay neutral in those areas that cause the greatest discord. However, isn't neutrality really a cop out of sorts?

Is it possible to have a society that is governed in complete absence of faith of any kind? Is it possible for those of deep faith to divorce their convictions in service to the society in which they live? What about humanism? Isn't that a faith of sorts minus a traditional church structure? If it is okay to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on another's right to do the same... why do we have any other laws at all?

Roland said something in the comment section of another post that has been in the back of my mind. He grew up on a farm and said that homosexuality is found in nature. I've heard that argument many times before. I guess if you are an evolutionist that would be a legitimate argument from the standpoint that we are all animals but... in the animal world that kind of behavior is about establishing dominance. I've never seen where that behavior in animals has been a (cough) completed act... if you get what I mean (uh... dying here). I think this argument is a weak one and doesn't take into account the unique ability of humans to reason and control themselves.

It has been my argument all along that homosexuality goes against nature. I still believe that. Are they created that way or is it a choice? There have been many studies and there has yet to be any discovery of a genetic link predisposing someone to that sort of activity. That being said, isn't all human action subject to that person's will? Even if someone is genetically predisposed toward any kind of aberrant behavior it doesn't remove moral responsibility or make the behavior right. What about, as Just Me pointed out, pedophiles? What about men/women that are chronically unfaithful to their spouse? What about eating disorders? I am personally familiar with that one. If choices are hard to make for some does that remove the responsibility for those choices?

How does all of this fit in with how our country is run? Do we stipulate that in order of fairness that all civil servants be void of faith? Who sets the standard? How can a state pass legislation regulating what kind of cooking oil restaurants use because of the harmful effects, yet people in that same state riot over decisions made during the election concerning gay marriage? It's okay for the state to regulate what people are eating? How does something like that go through when alcohol is legal? What about parading through the streets naked as a form of protest? How is that legal? How about in my own state where it is now legal for men and women to use whatever restroom they believe they belong in? Does anyone else out there find any of what is going on in our country bizarre?

If you are neutral are you complicit in those things in which you claim neutrality? Is it possible to love people that live a lifestyle that is detrimental to them? How do you reach out in love and acceptance of where they are and still maintain your standards of right and wrong? Don't we have a personal responsibility as citizens to live out our convictions... and are those convictions real if we are able to lay them to the side in favor of peace that will only last until the next battle to push the line back further?

As for the current fight for gay marriage rights... The common definition of marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman. Some online and newer dictionaries have added to their definitions to include more politically correct wording. I did a bit of research on civil unions and was shocked to learn that they are only available in some states and that there are some differences between legal marriage and a civil union... most notably the divorce option. I do not understand why the fire power behind the gay movement doesn't go after making civil unions more accessible. It seems to me that that would be the easier route. Looking at it from that perspective makes me feel that this fight really is a fight to undermine some basic tennets of our society. If it were only a fight for the same rights it would be apparent that the way to go would be through civil unions due to it being the path of least resistence yeilding the results they say they are seeking. However, this is also a battle over a word and the definition of that word... to the point of irrationality and a seeming desire to bend all others of another mind set to their will. There are many battlefronts here and you need to look at all of them. The push for earlier and earlier sex education in order to indoctrinate children into the belief that homosexuality is normal and good for one.


Two Dogs said...

Coffee Bean, you are asking the right questions. Do you notice that I did not include the words, "In my opinion?" I am claiming not only the fact that I know beyond any doubt that I am right, but that you do as well.

Your people pleasing ways are allowing you to refuse to make a stand on things. God DEMANDS that you do that. It is not suggested, it is DEMANDED. This is not my opinion, it is a fact. You cannot dispute that and oddly enough, I penned a post this morning dealing with this very topic because of a coffee barrista's statement to me this morning regarding some asinine statement she made and I pointed out how stupid it was.

There are things that you (meaning anyone that has any intellectual capacity) hear said on a daily basis that are ridiculous. You pointed one out when you suggested that Roland's statement that homosexuality exists in nature, which you know is patently false and you even pointed out the reason that it is false! I honestly do not believe that Roland is evil, he has just taken the people pleasing to the ultimate level, a total disregard for any rational thought save that of the horde.

You also touched on another thing. Humans do NOT all have the capacity to reason. Obama got elected in this country based solely on those that refuse to think, instead they blow hither and yon depending upon only their momentary emotional state. The fact is that there was not one single human being that voted for Obama that possesses any intellectual capacity or if they do, they are evil. Obama insisted on giving people the "right" to allow living babies to die. MURDER. There is no possible explanation for that belief other than a severe hatred of human life. None.

"If you are neutral are you complicit in those things in which you claim neutrality?"

What is your answer? Yes, CB, you are right and do not let anyone tell you that you are not, they are lying.

Two Dogs said...

On that last paragraph, recognizing evil as anything other than evil, is evil. Calling murder "man slaughter" doesn't remove the fact that it is murder, it just dresses down the definition.

Calling homosexual relationship attachments "civil unions" or "marriage," ignores the fact that it is wrong and to live that lifestyle is wrong.

There is a right and there is a wrong.

Coffee Bean said...

Two Dogs,

Here is where I am having trouble. I do believe there is a right and there is a wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong... as well as adultry, gluttony, abortion, murder, stealing and even just plain ole selfishness. The hypocrisy of socially accepting some sins over others troubles me. This whole push for gay marriage has become more of a religious issue being forced upon the general public in a country that is supposed to have freedom... at least, that is how it is presented. Everything always ends up getting pushed off to the extreme too.

I do not hate gay people. I am not afraid of them. I believe that God loves them as he loves everyone and desires their repentence. Ole John 3:16, you know?

There's that whole separation of church and state thing... Is it freedom from religion or freedom of religion? Do I have the right to impose my convictions on others? The only way I could be "imposing" my convictions on others is through my votes. This representative republic we stupidly call a democracy is getting turned all upside down. Are we all being held hostage by a minority? Isn't it all we can do to live our lives in the way that we are led... including voting our conscience?

Why is it in this day and age that saying you believe something wrong is fast becoming a crime?

Two Dogs said...

I once wrote a letter that said "I believe that no one other than me should be able to vote." Since I wrote that letter, should my thought be included in the record as a law in this country? Because Thomas Jefferson, ONE MAN, once wrote "The Separation Clause" in a letter does that mean that it is any more legitimate than my statement? The fact that people continually point to that to remove any type of morality from our government is just plain stupid. Read the Constitution and the subsequent legislation from Congress, is there any overlap at all? Face it, there is absolutely no regard in the least for LAW in this country. Legislators and judges just make it up whole cloth whenever their emotions (not their intellect and comprehension) desire, Coffee Bean. Do you honestly want a man that states for the record, with his votes and his statements, that killing babies is a good thing?

Sheer evil. There exists no other way to define it.

The one premise that remains in our country, simply because anti-intellectual morons cannot figure out a way to completely dismantle it, is that we are a country of INDIVIDUALS, a group cannot be sentenced for the crimes of ONE MAN. Think about that. If that was a possibility, Obama would already be in prison because of the crimes of his philosophical brethren, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, and the actions of their groups. Groups do not have any rights at all according to our laws that founded our country. And they still do not, FOR NOW.

God delivered you the ability to provide for your own salvation, not the ability to provide salvation for any other person. You are an individual because God made you as a single, separate entity. You do possess the power to persuade, not determine.

There is only one way to "impose" your convictions on others, and that is only perpetrated by our government and their lack of any intelligent rationale. By force, at the end of their weapons. Their brutality against rational thought and God-like morality.

I do not hate gay people either, CB, their actions have no bearing on me and I offer them absolutely no regard whatsoever, UNTIL I HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, which is offering my sanction. I sanction EVIL when I accept that which God forbids. And if I pay for it with money that I have earned through my own production, they are imposing their evilness upon MY salvation. I AM being held hostage by an EVIL minority, one that was condemned by God for their behavior. I cannot allow that if I am to live my life as a righteous man, striving to live my life as God DEMANDS it.

Again, there is a right, and there is a wrong, there exists no grayness in this regard, no ambiguity. We make those choices much, much harder than they need to be. Am I my brother's keeper? Quite certainly, but when my brother refuses to acknowledge truth, I have to turn my back to evil and live my life in a Godly manner.

Children simplify things in their thought, because "the existentialism of ambiguity" or moral relativism have not clouded their judgment. Quite possibly that is the reason that is stated in your Bible that only those that strive to possess the innocence of children shall be welcomed into Heaven.

Please understand that I am not preaching my "rightness" or speaking down to anyone. I have removed my need to please anyone other than myself and to concern myself completely with my own salvation, that is my charge given to me by God. This is called "selfishness" or concern with one's own well-being, which is certainly NOT a negative thing.

Does that seem completely bonkers to you? Sorry, but it is what God demands of me and everyone else.

Roland Hulme said...

I just wrote a really long response and blogger ate it! DARN!

I will paraphrase what I wrote into bullets!

CB - excellent post!

I agree that as long as they have all the same rights and legal protections of a marriage, gay people should be happy enough with civil unions. It's all semantics anyway.

Two Dogs - homosexuality if rife in nature. I love the way if something disagrees with your perspective you just declare (with no justification whatsoever) that it's 'not true.' Because it is, old chum. I've seen it myself - and you can't blame the New York times for turning our sheep gay, since we lived in England at the time.

CB - I see your point about pedophiles and the like being 'born that way' like gay people, but obviously shouldn't have the freedom (or excuse) not to control their behavior.

But that's based on the assumption that being gay is a bad thing. Is it? Is doesn't bother me. It's between consenting adults. Nobody gets hurt, abused... No christian has ever even explained to me exactly HOW homosexuality 'destroys the sanctity of marriage.'

Live and let live. We should ideally live in a true American free society, in which homosexuals can live their lives without being victimised - and christians can homeschool their kids without being victimised. Freedom for all, descrimination against none.

I get so sick of Republicans calling themselves the 'American' party and pretending their patriots when they're as intent on controlling how other people choose to live their lives as the hard-core liberals are.

Two Dogs said...

Roland, I agree with you regarding England being filled with gay people and gay animals. Since every single human in England chooses to participate in homosexual behavior with other people and even turn animals gay, don't you think we, in the Greatest Country in the World, should limit the effects on our Good Society by restricting the immigration of the gay English?

And to simply dismantle your entire argument, Kant was a moron and basically taught an entire generation that man cannot understand anything. An awful lot of folks bought into the stupidity. I hope you all got t-shirts, it will help us smart folks out to see quickly who to stay away from.

By the way, in case you do not understand a very basic premise, homosexuality is a behavior or action. A person cannot just be a homosexual, that is an active decision, followed by a physical action. By your very same basic understanding, I assume that there exists a whole group of people, to whom civil rights should be rewarded because of their exclusivity, that should be referred to as "Masturbators." The fact that the very definition of words has been diminished shows the extent of corruption of our morals and intelligence. The vast majority of people have surrendered their ability to think beyond Cheerios and Bacon-salt.

Coffee Bean said...

Hey Roland,

I read the Wikipedia article you provided the link to. I'll be honest here and admit that it was disturbing to me. I can see where you, being an evolutionist, see this as proof that homosexuality is normal. I, however, believe we were created. The problem I have with the corelation between animals and humans is that we posess much more than animals in terms of ability, intelligence, reasoning, etc. There is still that little problem of the missing link when you look at evolution/adaptation.

I sat here and stared for a bit. Then I decided to go looking around to see if I could find a Christian response to homosexuality in nature. Not because I don't think for myself. I do. I was just wondering if there was something that hadn't occurred to me. I found this article written in 1996 and found it most interesting as the author of the article had many of the same questions I do.

The author of the article is right. There are no easy answers here.

Two Dogs said...

CB, I didn't read the article that you linked because I just do not have the time, but I want to commend you on doing something that most folks don't do. You actually took the time to realize that Roland's statements don't make sense, so you looked for information to give you more knowledge. I call that "having an active mind."

You hear folks say closed-minded and open-minded all the time, but those terms really make no sense at all. If you take those two terms at face value, you quickly see that an open mind allows all ideas to flow in unimpeded and all rational thought to flow out without being retained.

Try the terms "active" and "passive" mind instead. Accepting other people's thoughts without any skepticism is what sheeple do. And the sheeple are currently 53% of the population of the United States.

Roland Hulme said...

Two dogs makes me laugh!

Brilliant article you linked to, CB. I especially liked this bit: Our message is ultimately, "I'm not okay, and you're not okay. But that's okay. Ultimately, the church has no simple answers for gays or anyone else."

I will admit, I grew up on a farm and have spent my whole life around animals and as far as I'm concerned, I see so much animal behavior in humans I honestly don't see how we can truly claim to be elevated from them.

But Darwin himself, in Descent of Man, stressed a difference between man and beast and how important it was that his theory of 'survival of the fittest' never be used in human society.

We are different, I guess. I mean, I'm sitting here, banging away at a plastic keyboard sending electrical messages into the ether. You can't do that and not acknowledge the difference.

When Baby Boozer laughs, it makes me think how no other type of animal laughs.

So we are different. But we're still animals deep down, I think.

You hit the nail on the head. there's no simple answer. Unless you're a simple person (my dig at people who blindly adopt a position.)

As always, you've been very thought provoking!

Two Dogs said...

I'm glad that you find it humorous when someone points out that your argument is completely dismantled, yet you go straight back to making it.

Coffee Bean said...

Here is an excellent article well worth the time it takes to read it!

I was struck by the following:

Proverbs 27: 7 says, "He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet". In psychological terms that means sexual temptation has little power to trap the person who has grown up feeling valuable and loved, because that person doesn't need sex to feel loved. But for the person who has grown up feeling unloved and not valued, sexual temptation will be strong, because bad love seems better than no love at all.

Children who grow up in homes where they are neglected and ignored score lower on psychological tests than children who grow up in homes where they are beaten, because bad attention and inappropriate affection is better than none at all.

This may help you understand why intelligent Bible College graduates are capable of making morally wrong choices. It's not a head issue - "If I just get enough biblical knowledge I won't have to struggle with my passions". People struggle with their passions in spite of biblical knowledge, because they are human with emotional and relational needs that may not yet be addressed properly.

We need to understand that people have reasons for the things they do, and judge them with mercy as God does.

Roland Hulme said...

"I'm glad that you find it humorous when someone points out that your argument is completely dismantled, yet you go straight back to making it."

This coming from the lummox who didn't even read CB's article. Sheesh.

Anyway, back to Coffee Bean...

I think that article's fascinating as well. The major problem, I guess, is religion. Based on rational morality (killing/stealing is bad, doing kinky bedroom stuff that hurts nobody is okay) there's not reason to condemn homosexuals. So why is it such a big deal?

My major problem with 90% of the conservative movement is that they suggest life should be led through Christian doctrine...

The problem with that is that I, and many others, don't believe in God. Millions other believe in a different God. What most evangelicals believe isn't even REMOTELY approaching Christianity anyway. So I don't see why some Christians believe that THEIR religious morality should be used as a guideline for all Americans, including non-Christians.

There is something unique and wonderful that unites all Americans together - but it's not Christianity and that religion, or any other, has no business being brought into issues like this.

Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:545

As far as I'm concerned, that's no better than the fundementalist Muslims demanding sharia law in the middle east.

Two Dogs said...

Sorry folks, I am tired of talking about gay marriage, so here is the definitive answer because no one other than me seems to know what it is.

The problem with trying to explain something that is completely self-evident to someone that doesn't even attempt to discover for themselves destroys intelligence even further. If your knowledge has to be spoonfed to you, special person that refuses to acknowledge the obvious, just so you will quit making ridiculously stupid arguments, lemme get my spoon.

Scratching around the edges of any single issue accomplishes nothing. Philosophy must come first. Think BIG PICTURE, not nail that might hold one side of the hanger that is used to support one corner of the BIG PICTURE.

Heterosexual marriage being sanctioned by the federal government is asinine. Marriage is between TWO people, not a country. The ONLY reason that it is done is for tax purposes, but that is never the debate from morons. Now, federal sanction of any marriage (normal or weird) is completely, totally, 100% without a single doubt, UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the United States of America. I do not care what lesser countries do in their backward way.

Two people. Two consenting adults. Easily understood by even the most simple mind in the world. Ask a three year old or someone that voted for Obama.

If you want to follow this to the very last inch of logical conclusion so intelligent people never have to hear it uttered ever again by someone that gets their morals from an unknown place, here it is.

FLAT TAX. If you need my help on this issue, to even further spoonfeed your knowledge so you do not have to debate about where penises and vaginas should be used, please do not hesitate to call me in the middle of my supper so I can answer any questions that your shallow philosophical depth cannot reach.

Now, to finally put to rest the killing of babies, here it is. A woman that gets pregnant has a choice. She can have the child and raise it as her own, or she can have the child and give it up for adoption. Since again, it is ONLY the money that is the situation, if she chooses not to keep the baby, at the moment she finds herself with child, then I and every single one of my philosophical brethren shall chip in willingly to cover her medical expenses to carry that child to term, as well as the needs of the mother. Afterward, we shall even cover her expense to get plastic surgery to correct anything that was possibly deformed in the interim. And yes, we shall provide that child with a home and the mother shall never have to take responsibility for her crotch-region clown car ever.

Now, there is the end all solution to both of the ridiculous problems that plague our country, please CAN WE MOVE ON?

I do apologize CB, debate is really fun for me with people that adhere to simple policies of intellectual honesty. When we move toward an arena of the he said/she said thingy, never breaking new ground, I get bored.

Coffee Bean said...

We have a system of government that was set up to guarantee certain freedoms for all.

The truth is I am just one woman out of millions in this country. I happen to be a woman that wants to be a good steward of the votes I cast. I haven't always been. I look around at the way things are now and wonder how we got here. I think that part of the problem is that too many people are casting votes for the wrong reasons. I'm not involved in politics and I don't even know if I really believe anymore that my vote will actually do anything... I just want to know that I did the best I could and that my vote was cast with integrity. It is all I can really do. I look around at the things going on and it scares me. There are aspects of our society that are just not right.

I don't know... I spent too much of my life ignoring the whole political scene and not taking my vote seriously. It was when I was homeschooling and teaching U.S. Government to a group of girls that I realized how little I really understood and how out of touch I was with current events. It wasn't obvious because I seemed to know more than many of my friends.

You might be interested to know that I don't really talk politics in real life. I tend to be more of a listener. I don't even talk to my husband about it much. He does ask me here and there if I'd heard some sort of news and we might discuss it a bit. We don't share all the same news sources. This blog is more of an extension of my thoughts.

In this supposed democracy we cast votes for those that we feel will best represent us and our values as they head off to D.C. or to our state capitols. We don't always get what we hoped for. Something has happened too where if there is an outcry against a decision made in the voting booths, and there is enough money behind it, lawyers go to bat to change the will of the people. The will of the people has come under attack and minorities have been given special status so that their voices can override the majority. That may not be exactly so, but it sure seems that way.

I'm just trying to understand what is happening and I'm trying to make the best informed decisions I can. And I am trying very hard to still believe my vote means something.

Coffee Bean said...

Hey Two Dogs,

I left my last comment before seeing your last comment. I, too, am weary of this topic.

I realized today that, for me, it really comes down to me, myself and I in the voting booth. I'm not an activist. I don't write policy. I'm just me. I have to vote my conscience.

I really like your idea of a flat tax. I hadn't thought of that in relation to the marriage issue.

There are many ministries that have been in place for years and years to help mothers place their unwanted children up for adoption. And those of us who oppose abortion support them.

Roland Hulme said...

I'm totally behind you on the adoption issue. People always think liberals are 'pro-abortion' when they're not. Nobody sane wants abortions to happen - the argument is just how to stop them.

And that involves easy access to contraception, explicit sex education and, as two dogs suggested, welfare for mothers. We can only end abortion by ending the need for it. Most conservatives I've spoken to want to ban abortion, but don't want to invest in any of the positive steps needs to achieve that goal.

As for a flat tax, I'm confused...

If you're talking about ending all the Byzantine 'write offs' and loopholes in our overly complicated tax system, I fully support you.

If you're really talking about a 'flat tax' - as in, everybody in America pays the same percentage of their wages - I will have to sit down and take a deep breath because that is an utterly INSANE idea.

I've just written a very heavily researched 2,000 word article for a magazine called 'Rape of the Taxpayer' and what I discovered during that process has made me realise that regular people, like CB, myself and Two Dogs (unless he's really Bill Gates) are getting SCREWED.

A flat tax is the stuff of libertarian fantasies, which is in the same realm as socialism as far as I'm concerned (they're both retarded fantasy systems of government, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.)

Two Dogs said...

Roland, if you would put your mind to the task of understanding freedom and individuality instead of trying to figure out how to return everyone to slavery, maybe you would grasp the ideas that would relieve you from the philosophy of the rotting corpse that is Europe. Yours is the philosophy of servitude, mine is the philosophy of greatness.

I do not want to live in Europe, and I do not want to surrender my life and my property to a police state. Since that is all you appear to desire, go for it. Send all of your money to the federal government that spends most of the money they confiscate for administration costs and to pay for their townhouses in Georgetown.

There are millions of people that worship at the altar of abortion, they LOVE KILLING BABIES, they love abortion. it removes all of their obligation for attempting to live their life right, they can be street scum and love it. I told you how to remove all reason for abortion, but it will never happen because it doesn't involve killing children. Your posse will not let that happen. They want slaves for their cause.

Of course you cannot understand flat tax, that doesn't accomplish the removal of personal accomplishment and it doesn't reduce everyone to slave status. That is your goal, maybe not right now, but you have to think past breakfast. You do not want equality, and that's fine for you, but you will never take my money for your crazy ideas. I refuse to give it.

By the way, I wrote a 148 word post, weeks ago, that completely dismantles your argument against a flat-tax and your love of a progressive tax system, with absolutely no links to anyone's ideas and intelligence other than mine. 148 to your 2000, individualism versus collectivism. Your research was wasted time, sorry. Because your accepted philosophy is very dumb. I'll let others decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong.

Roland, I will offer you this tidbit. When you realize the extent of your philosophical depravity and how dreadfully wrong you are, I shall certainly welcome you into the camp of the individual, the camp of personal choice. You will have attempted everything under the sun to FORCE people to follow your humanistic morality. It shall always fail, as it always has, man desires freedom, mostly from other men like you, but freedom nevertheless. I shall have no need for you to reciprocate that invitation, because I am right.

Also understand, that I desire for you to finally understand how wrong that you are before it's too late for you to make up for it.

Coffee Bean said...

I lifted the following from Two Dog's comment section... I'm sure you don't mind Two Dogs. I don't know how many people click on your links (and I don't know how to do that in comments!) and then I don't know if people go on to read the comments. This is the best and easiest to understand analogy I have read.

Suppose that every night, ten men go to their favorite bar for beer. The tab for all ten
comes to $100 for ten pitchers. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every night and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your nightly tab by $20.”

So, now drinks for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their tab the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six, the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being ‘PAID‘ to drink beer!

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once drunk and outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up at the bar, so the nine sat down and drank without him. But when it came time to pay the tab, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for
even half of the tab!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up to pick up the tab anymore.

I do want to step in here and say something about killing babies. Roland, you and I've gone round about this before.

Many people do not like abortion yet feel that it isn't their right to choose for everyone. I can follow that logic... to a point. There is much that I believe is wrong and don't participate in but do not feel I have the right to tell others to do the same.

In the case of abortion, you are talking about ignoring the rights of the unborn. Fetuses are alive. As medicine advances, babies are able to be saved at younger and younger gestational ages. I went into labor with our youngest at nearly 23 weeks. That is barely half way through the pregnancy.

Abortion clinics are businesses. I heard a woman speak that used to run an abortion clinic and she talked about how they made sure they had a steady stream of clients by going to to the schools to hand out their literature, providing transportation to and from schools, and said that they saw every teen as a potential client. They had quotas. They needed to keep girls coming through so that they could stay in business. Their paychecks were dependant upon abortion. It is an industry.

The abortion fight is an ugly one. I stand against it not because I want to force my beliefs and morals on others. I see it as standing up for the most helpless members of our society. Who is there to represent them? You have a baby you love very much. You anxiously awaited his arrival and you enjoy watching him grow right before your eyes. Those babies whose lives were ended through abortion... it rips my heart out!!! I can stand for them. I can take people directing their hatred at me as they foolishly believe I want to ruin their lives by taking away their choice, their "right" to kill.

Roland, I believe you want to see abortion ended. We are just on different pages as to how we can, as a society, end it. I'm not sure where you get the idea that conservatives want abortion ended but don't want to be part of the aftermath... All across this country there are Crisis Pregnancy centers manned by volunteers that are there to help mothers... there are homes for unwed mothers... you are completely unaware of all that is available and paid for by those who want to support those who are making the choice to have their babies. If the mothers decide to keep their babies they are helped beyond the birth. There are education programs... programs to help find employment.

You've been fed some pretty big lies at some point where abortion is concerned and about those who want it to end.

Two Dogs said...

CB, the one way to start toward the end of abortion is to call it what it is, it is NOT the termination of a fetus, it is the killing of a baby. The language is of utmost importance.

By the same token, a Muslim that runs into a Pizza Hut and explodes a bomb that kills women and children is NOT a freedom fighter, nor is he a insurgent. He is a murdering extremist, a terrorist.

As always, words mean something and the people that want our society to get to the point of KILLING will stop at nothing to achieve that goal. That is exactly what a progressive tax system does, too. Mutually exclusivity does not exist. Contradictions cannot exist.

Roland Hulme said...

Hey CB!

I don't think I've been told big lies about Republican attitudes towards welfare, but I admit I might have missed out seeing the big picture, if it includes all those wonderful charities available for mothers without the means to look after their unborn babies. All I hear is the mantra: "No more welfare!"

As for the tax thing - I LOVE that story you lifted off Two Dog's blog. It's not remotely accurate, or course. But it's funny.

Remember, our system of taxation isn't as simple as that story makes out. For a start, imagine that exact billing scenario, but add in the fact that all the drinkers had to pay a flat $5 entrance fee to that bar, including the poorest of the drinkers. Then imagine the eighth person, who had to pay $9, is owed a favor by the bartender, so he ends up not having to pay anything. Then imagine the richest drinker, who pays $59, by far biggest portion of the bill, has a mail-in rebate beer token, so he gets $15 of that bill back in a week or so. Oh, and throw in the fact that he's a VIP member of that bar, so he pays a discounted rate for beer, so while he pays more than the others, when it comes to his own personal share of that drinking bill, the beer he's bought is half the price the other people were charged.

It's a little simplified, but then you're looking at a SLIGHTLY more realistic version of that story. In reality, no matter what you earn, the average worker's tax rate in America is 40%.

We already have a flat tax.

Roland Hulme said...

$5 entrance fee is a bit much. Make that $1.

Two Dogs said...

Roland, five dollars is certainly not too much to keep the riff-raff out of a beer club.