Unquiet Voice - Latest Comments

Re: We All Care for Health Care

Fishermage — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:55:07 -0000

Nicely said. Found your blog recently and I like what I have seen here.

Re: Social Control Through the Back Door?

MacArthur4 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:04:51 -0000

Progressive Christians only voice I have ever seen politically is quite limited. Their numbers are decreasing church wise , their political culture or acceptance of their beliefs in much of the culture of today is being accepted .

But humanism and its strong political and social issues are having the effect on the progressive church and their agenda , not the other way around . The DNC Platform which has little or no input from the Progressive Church has many of the issues the progressive church embraces . The church itself has nothing to do with the DNC/liberal issues.

The RNC Platform has many issues that have come because of the religious right , which I disagree with also in as far as using the state to promote our Faith , but the fact of the matter is the issues important to the Church of today are allowed to be used to further other political issues also . Which is the danger of linking the church with government, you can promote one issue but helped the other alliance of the party to promote an issue that indeed is not compatible with Christianity. The social and political issues are almost all accepted by the religious left if you read their blogs and spokespersons , refardless of religion , , their politics remain the most important bonding factor, not God.

They Progressive Church are closer to the culture of today then the Church is , but from a Christian point of view I would not say that was a good thing. In fact the world has steadily been creeping into the church instead of the church doing the creeping into the world so to speak. You just see it more in the progressive church and the socialistic , even at times idol worshiping of this cultures present issues from the progressive church.

Re: Impoverishment of the Imagination

xfree9 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:23:36 -0000

Rob, I'm curious how you square grace with recipients "not doing anything" for somebody else's charity? If we are to show grace and mercy to our fellow human beings, should the principle of giving something away "for free" not apply to them as well?

You and I agree about the principle itself, but the question is, how does that relate to the notion of grace? Or, maybe, why does grace not apply in this situation?

Re: Impoverishment of the Imagination

MacArthur4 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:25:08 -0000

Also the recipient of the gift does not receive the real gift , that Jesus Christ is responsible for the gift and is open to that recipient to receive much more beyond imagination. Politics regardless of the religious right or left reflect , they do not penetrate into hearts.

Re: Impoverishment of the Imagination

robhulson — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:42:56 -0000

> If it is truly the vocation, calling, and responsibility of the people of God to not only live out but carry out God’s justice, why would we want to hand over those tasks to an entity whose primary mechanism of operation is threat of force

Dang it, you stole one of my blog ideas. One of my fundamental objections to gov't charity is that it kills ingenuity and the imagination of

a) the RECIPIENT of the charity, as they get rewarded for not doing anything (creating a bad pattern if not intervened), and
b) the OTHER PEOPLE who should be devising beneficial ways to do charity for their own neighbors.

Instead, we leave all the ingenuity to government (whose capabilities, wisdom, and expertise at handling resources thriftily and wisely are... suspect at best), which alleviates my sense of responsibility to help my neighbor because "I pay for your welfare" in a general sense with taxes.

Re: Impoverishment of the Imagination

xfree9 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:20:04 -0000

Fixed. Thanks!

Re: Impoverishment of the Imagination

Greg — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:31:05 -0000

I'd be very interested in hearing that discussion, but the URL doesn't work. Do you have another?

Re: The Power of Story

xfree9 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:46:23 -0000

No, I think we all resonate with stories. That's why we remember sermons where the pastor tells a story that we particular remember. Even if we don't remember "the point," we are experiencing it in certain aspects by virtue that it resonated with us and remained in our memories.

Re: The Power of Story

charlesj — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:14:38 -0000

I heard a talk by the authors of the book called "Made to Stick". It's about how to get people to remember what you say. Stories are a very effective method of communication. Stories are very sticky.

The narrative portions of Scripture grab my attention much better than the theological portions. Maybe it's just the artistic side of me. Am I the only one?

Re: The Power of Story

awtum — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:25:57 -0000

Soul food. Thanks!

Re: Golfing our way out of a recession

MacArthur4 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:54:51 -0000

I heard he was having a good round till the 4th hole. He blamed the high score on the Bushes that got in the way . Some things never change I guess.

Re: Capitalism and the Kingdom of God

Guest — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:47:27 -0000

I disagree with the first assumption of capitalism becoming unimportant in Christian circles. That has been a liberal projection made possible by a very small minority of some liberal political beliefs who happen to have been brought up in a cessionist Bibical world view. Its popular in Europe.
The view of the government source for promoting "justice" of a kind that includes equal distribution based on need has been around for centuries , masked in political movements . Communism the past two centuries , Social Justice by the political left in todays political democratic party. The basis for support has always been by promoting the evil in those who have , and the injustice done to those who have not based on race, culture, or circumstance. Thus allowing a third party who has no responsibility for the outcomes to decide where all the resources to be given to .

I see it no different then the poltical right of past decades method of ignoring the welfare given to large businesses while scapegoating the poor in the name of the free market. The free market has been attacked by republicans also.

An honest days work should allow for an honest day's pay. Those who work better then others should receive more. Those who are willing to take more risks and succeed should be allowed to bear the fruit of their labor , and they themselves decide where that fruit and the seeds there of to be planted again.

Free Markets produce more , and with a culture surrounded and inspired by religious principles , in this country once being Christian , those fruits will allow for more to be blessed then any kind of government system that inflicts the person to submit their fruits to the whims and desire of a third party. Christians embraced capitalism in this country because they believed tehy are directly accountable to God for their lives .

Our educational system along with a dominant leftist re writing of history has produced a negative understanding of the free market that promotes a negative view of free markets . Bill Gates is seen as a hero that is few and far between , Paris Hilton the norm of riches and excessive self indulgence.

In reality , the small business man still holds the key of promoting jobs and real improvement for everyday lives . He however appears to be forgotten and taught to not take chances but bunker down and just try to survive in a economic system full of regulations and penalty for successes . Why risk when your gain will be given to someone who knows better then you ?

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

Guest — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:10:05 -0000

Good quote on what government does to people in the name of the common good and what we oursleves would never think of doing to another person / Perhaps its why it is why they demonize whothey disagree with , convince yourself that nasty business owner was greedy and deserves to have their property taken from them . . XFree Socialism , perhaps Communism of the early Christians worked better as you say it because it was completly voluntary . Also God was at the head , modern day socialism and communism comes to governments where religion is decreased in importance from all examples I see. Look at even the liberal concept of socialism from the religious left , it is based in putting government ahead of other beliefs based in Christ , the need to demonize is needed . Take away that aspect of the religious left , and the secular left would not even tolerate them at election times .

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

xfree9 — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:25:05 -0000

I recently began reading "Boundaries of Order" by Butler Shaffer. It's a free PDF online, so if you google the title and "PDF" after the name, you can get it for free. I started in chapter 9 on collectivism vs. individualism. Here is a quote from page 266: "Few of us would have the stomach to person- ally confront a neighbor, or even a total stranger, and do to him what we thoughtlessly approve of government officials routinely doing to millions of others through their collective authority."

That entire chapter is well-written and echoes/defends what I've said here in this post, primarily by pointing out that social contract theory on a large-scale, such as federal or even state/province, is not a truly social cooperative as is other forms of collectivizing. I've often wondered why large-scale attempts to implement what we can anachronistically read back into Acts 2 as "successful socialism" where the believers all shared equally and "no one had need" are unsuccessful. After pondering and evaluating, it has to do with the fact that it was voluntary, not compulsory. Smaller groups of collective action intended to change that within their reach is not unethical or unbiblical. In fact, it is deeply biblical and rooted in kingdom change.

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

1Grace — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:41:19 -0000

It seems to me that the "social contract" business is simply a way to reconcile faith to partisan objectives. Am I wrong?"

Kevin that is exactly what it is . Many conservatives have done the same , . Its why I sometimes feel out of touch with many of my fellow conservatives who use religion to justify less spending and smaller government . I agree its my philosophy for the most part to keep government smaller and out of our hair, and I do belive larger government has the stronger potential to limit our religious freedom and all freedoms at times. , but it is my partisan belief . The hypocrisy I find with the religious left goes beyond the right from a outside view looking at them both . Here you have the left saying to the right since when are you able to speak for God , then they do it plus demonize the right . As I said , I believe we have accomplished great things in our past in this country , because freedom and freedom from government control have allowed us to be all we can be . That advantage has greatly increasded our standard of living for all people , including if not mainly the poor . Compared to many nations , our poor have it much better and have more safety nets then many nations .

I judge our commitment to the poor by how many people do not need government help. That to be is just common sense .

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

kevin47 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:07:27 -0000

Well, since I've been banned twice by Sojourners for being inappropriate(ly conservative), I can go back to my former name.

The "social contract" argument is not an argument. It has no internal logic, and cannot be consistently applied. That is why it is so dangerous. One can argue from "social contract" to apply any ethical code they choose.

Valerie would never argue that we have a social contract that requires us to buy me new windows, so the social contract is not all encompassing. As such, it is an intellectually lazy substitute for a principled defense of a real policy change on healthcare.

Which begs a question. Valerie, presumably, wants the best for this country, and wants to advance the best ideas therefore. So what gives?

It seems to me that the "social contract" business is simply a way to reconcile faith to partisan objectives. Am I wrong?

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

1Grace — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:27:18 -0000

"If nobody makes a profit from health care does that make America a more prosperous place?"

Doctors make money from health care , teachers make money from educating , politicians make money from taking money from one person and giving it to the other . Read the other day Barny Frank has an estate over a million bucks . Not to bemoan anyone from making money , but it seems he makes money using healthcare, , good money, and has better health care , and benys then the average American . Plus the Insurance company pays taxes , Barny lives off their taxes .

Teachers and Doctors are alright , two out of three ain't bad I guess.

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

1Grace — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:22:12 -0000

Some excellent points here , like the Bruce Almighty analogy . How true . The freedom we have from government taking more of our life's work have allowed so many good things to happen to this country . I am somewhat patriotic , but I don;t believe America has this magic water that made our tolerant culture and the abundance we share in because our babies are just born into greatness . We are no better then they are in Mexico, China, South Africa. Our Constitution and love for freedom has allowed people to devote their lives to their fullest . Inventions , technology, the ability to overcome based on ones own desire and incentive , where as other countries will stymie that vision that our country allows . .

If we had taken the redistribution route 200 years ago , we would not be talking about redistributing now , we would be telling people to expect less then what they had last year . Thats the real sin of socialism , communism, or redistribution , all people suffer in the long run , especially the poor . It sounds very nice to tell a child to have what you want and need , but it is so much more loving to teach the child how to get what they want and need because only God has the trust people should rely on . Government is not evil , but the love of government can become a false idol .

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

xfree9 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:17:01 -0000

I think what most people mean by this is a "non-profit" model, like a church or other organization, where the business model is not built upon gaining capital and making higher margins. In theory, it sounds great. I'm not sure how economically damaging it would be to the health care industry, to whom we owe a great deal for the medical advancements they have given us.

Re: Social Contract Theory as Power Play

charlesj — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:59:15 -0000

I just read this part of her article: "I wanted the president to say that the United States will finally join the rest of the industrialized world and disconnect basic health-insurance coverage from the profit motive." Is it possible to remove "the profit motive" from any industry? Removing health insurance competition isn't going to remove a person's desire to make money and use the system to their own advantage. If nobody makes a profit from health care does that make America a more prosperous place?

Re: Just Write it into Law

Anothernonymous — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:32:33 -0000

Not at present. That, I think, is my point. We have a real crisis that only the government can fix in anything like the amount of time required to save lives.

Re: Just Write it into Law

xfree9 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:05:53 -0000

I'm a lot more scared of economic injustice and its moral implications than I am of the government.

But what I think I'm saying is that there is much economic injustice caused by and perpetuated by government itself.

Re: Just Write it into Law

Anothernonymous — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:25:08 -0000

I understand your desire to have it both ways. My point was that in real life things don't work like that. There are at this moment needy, desperately ill people in this country who are dying due to lack of medical care while wealthy people have laser eye surgery. To me this situation is simply intolerable, and there are no concerns about possible government malfeasance that I couldn't easily sweep under the carpet in order to fix it.

I guess that's an essential difference between me and you. I'm a lot more scared of economic injustice and its moral implications than I am of the government.

Re: Just Write it into Law

xfree9 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:41:23 -0000

Using the reasoning of the government, I'd say, "Let's print some money and get both."

Personally, if I were paying, I'd say, "I'll get you your eye surgery once the girl is saved."

There is no system with all correct answers. In a free market utopia where everyone does act peacefully there would still be dilemmas like this. I just don't believe in putting the power of life and death in the hands of a few politicians, even ones who currently are benevolent (so they say).

Re: Just Write it into Law

Anothernonymous — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:25:24 -0000

Let's put it this way. If it came down to a choice between a system in which an upper middle-class guy with good insurance could get any health care his doctor recommended, no questions asked, and a desperately poor teenager with leukemia and without insurance (her father is in jail and her mother is unemployed) couldn't qualify for a transplant that would save her life - and one in which a government official could say "No, you can't have your laser eye surgery because we're going to spend the money to save this girl's life" - which one would you choose? No in-betweens: just up or down?