Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Why do I need to be an American?

 

I have no interest in Australian government.

 

Uh, okay. Why do I need to be an American?

 

I do not think it is strange to list different ways to accomplish a task. It is actually the smart thing to do as opposed to rushing ahead blindly.

For example you can try to feed the hungry by yourself by handing out sandwiches at a street corner, or by selecting few individuals who need to be fed, which is fine, or you can choose to support (donate money ) to an organization who feeds thousands. Both approaches honor God equally.

Me thinks you are very politically oriented person. It is common also among US christians, which is a great shame because in many cases it get between people and God.

 

We take away people's money and give it to others for all sorts of stuff - national defense, transportation, justice (from the SC to the local officer), maintenance of our business community (copyrights, patents, SEC, banking oversight, etc., etc., etc.).

The issue that should be debated isn't taxes - civilization can not exist without contributions of its members.

What we should discuss is what kind of society do we want.

 

I don't see evidence of this last sentence. Do you have any?

 

Correct.

 

Here is the quote from the judge again: "A wedding cake is not just a cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct."

Note how he says that it isn't JUST about speech, but also "artistic expression!"

 

Next thread: Can you be a Nazi and a clerk at 7-Eleven at the same time?

And a thread after that: Can you be a Hillary supporter and own a turtle at the same time?

And a thread after that: Can you be a Commmunist and have a bunny at the same time?

 

Wouldn't it require the rich to get taxed at a higher rate?

 

That's different to individuals. Without defense, the country ends. Without transportation, the economy shuts down.

 

All of which can be done without redistribution of wealth.

What makes you say that?

 

You are not getting it. I specifically said there are MANY ways to get it done, and even gave you examples, but it seems you see only one way. So be it. And that also answers your question about why I say your mind is political.

This is also distribution of wealth (one example of it): "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor"

 

Well there are only two ways aren't there? Voluntary charity and compulsory charity. I thought that you were using Matthew 25 specifically to support compulsory charity through the redistribution of wealth, but perhaps you weren't. And if you weren't, you did a terrible job of correcting me!

What do you think Jesus meant by "perfect?"

 

Unless they're guilty of a crime that precludes their buying your product, or receiving your service, you sell it to them or serve them. Obviously.

 

I don't think there are better ways to explain it than to specifically state the points with help of examples.

I specifically said I am only pointing out there are many ways to reach the goal, and that I am not promoting any particular way, but here you are again suggesting otherwise.

You argue for the sake of arguing, and it is getting tiresome. No further comments.

Perfect like Him, which is not possible. He knew the person he was talking to was not going to give his wealth to the poor and follow Jesus. You are not willing to do so either.

 

Well, with a small twist. He said the cake is not just a CAKE. Under the law, artistic expression is speech. The judge is saying the cake counts as speech.

And, I agree with that part.

But, the cake is a statement by the wedding couple who participated in the design of the cake, not some anonymous baker who is not present and whose contribution to the design isn't particularly known.

Is this the case from Kern County, CA? That judge actually said that an "off the shelf" cake would not constitute speech at a wedding while an IDENTICAL cake baked to order WOULD be speech at a wedding!!! Of course, if both cakes were at the wedding (like, a two cake wedding reception) nobody present could have identified which cake was "speech" and which case was NOT "speech" as per the crazy judge's opinion.

Kern County is a seriously "conservative" area, and this judge was clearly playing to the audience. His statements just didn't make sense.

 

Revenue would undoubtedly come from income tax and we do have a graduated tax system.

I have no problem with that at all.

Our healthcare system is designed for the rich.

And, all other industrialized countries show significant cost savings in healthcare. If we could realize that savings that every other nation accomplishes it would reduce the healthcare load for all citizens.

Also, some nations with single payer systems have their system cover most but not all possible medical expenses. Those with wealth can then buy additional coverage they want when they want it.

As a person in the highest tax bracket I see single payer as having benefits that I like. From a totaI want everyone working, not going bankrupt, harboring disease, taking up time from family members who must quite their careers to supply aid, etc., etc.

We're better off as a whole nation when we aren't sick.

And, there is no morality in this idea that the poor have to trade off food for medical help and medications. Why should American citizens be in that situation when the citizens of all other industrialized nations are NOT?

 

And, without help to those who need it we have American citizens dying in the street.

 

It sounds terrible to say it, but the US health system has been this way for a very long time and the country is still as strong as ever. The point is, you simply cannot compare it to defense and transportation!

 

So your tax bracket wouldn't change?

 

Why does the baker NEED to be present? Why are you trying to decide for people what 'expression' means to them?

It is.

 

I will always be in the top tax bracket - no matter what congress ever does.

 

Some argue that if nobody knows who the baker is (if he isn't present, etc.) then that weakens the claim by the baker that it is HIS speech and NOT the speech of the couple being married.

The Kern Co. judge was the one who said that an off the shelf cake would not be "speech" but an identical cake made AFTER the order WOULD be speech. That hits me as bizarre, as speech happens when there is someone listening or watching. If that person can't tell the difference, then I don't see any possibility of claiming there IS a difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence. I don't believe I decided anything.

 

Here I am again? Did you completely miss where I said in my last post, "perhaps you weren't" saying what I thought you were saying?

Neither are you.

So what do you think the lesson from this is for us today?