Guns, God, and Conservatives

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-06-30 09:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Nathan F wrote:I just noticed one thing that I would have to disagree with, that being the religion part. Being a religious person myself, I don't believe that religion is used by the US government to keep the people in line. While I know that religion is pervasive throughout the government (simply because it is so deeply rooted in society, and our government is a democracy elected by the majority of the people, and the majority being religious in some way), I also know that it is good to have a separation of church and state. That said, I also know that some governments do use religion to keep a hold on the people (Iran and the former Afghanistan being prime examples). But, I don't believe that the US, or most western governments, spread religious ideologies to reign in the people.
National Prayer day ring a bell? One Nation under God? Constant public references tying well-behaved people to religion? Any of this sound familiar to you?

That third reason I am not familiar with, or simply haven't noticed it. As for the other two, they were two reasons that I said that, quote, 'While I know that religion is pervasive throughout our government (simply because it is so deeply rooted in our society...)...'. If you notice, I say that I know it is in the government, just I don't see it being used to reign in the people.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-30 10:18pm

Stormbringer wrote:Yeah, I think that's certainly it. Though to be honest Democrats have been hijacked by their own problem elements as well.

The democrats have been under one hijacker or another for most of the past 140 years. Whereas the GOP was a mainly united front for quite a long time, the Dems have been scizophrenic. This has sometimes allowed them to achieve astronomical political success... but only in the short term.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-01 04:28pm

Plus let's stop and consider that it is not necessarily the politicians or the government telling people to be religious or force an agenda; it is a large chunk of the voting populace that are religious and want to see the government reflect that. Or the people that run for office are coming from this bloc of citizens and carry their ideas with them without actually contemplating it as a strategy.

I mean, a politician gets up on a podium and says "I believe in God and that God loves America"-- he gets cheers and votes. So he continues to parrot that line, whether he believes it or not.

Many people want to think that a person in high office fears an intangible moral authority-- yes, I know, that supposed "moral authority" is corrupt, murderous, etc, I've heard the arguments here before and I'm not the one pushing the agenda.

Whether it is accurate or not, many believers these days see God as a good guy, loving and compassionte, and the evil done in God's name in the Bible were either necessary excesses (ie a war, when the gloves come off) or distortions by corrupt priests through the ages, or metaphors. Since that is the current popular belief in religious culture, they breathe a sigh or relief at the idea that a national leader reflects the good things they choose to see.

Democrats have dabbled in fundamentalist religion roots as well-- Jimmy Carter made it a big part of his Presidency, courting votes and the like, and Clinton made it a point to be seen going to his Southern Baptit church from time to time. Again, that's probaly more of the politician reflecting what the public wants more than any actual alliance with fundy voters...

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-07-02 11:53pm

Modern day America needs a Liberterian party seperate from the Consevative agenda of the Republicans.

Not necessarily. There was one Libertarian candidate recently that stated he supported lifting ALL control from weapon ownership, including allowing people to own nuclear weapons if they so desired.

That's the problem with the Libertarian party... too disjointed and fractured to form a steady, strong basis for a political party.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-07-02 11:53pm

Though to be honest Democrats have been hijacked by their own problem elements as well.

The Republicans have the Religious Right, and the Democrats have the Bleeding Hearts.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-07-05 12:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:I came upon an interesting argument a while ago from a sociologist, which I will paraphrase here:
When a government takes money from the masses to enrich the elites, it ceases to be a just society and becomes a kleptocracy. Note: I love the word "kleptocracy"; it cracks me up every time

A kleptocracy has three ways of maintaining its control over the population:
Arm the elites and disarm the populace

Give back enough of its proceeds in the form of social services that the people are happy.

Construct an ideology (religion or nationalism or communism) which promises intangible rewards for obediently continuing to suffer the kleptocrats
Agree? Disagree?

Is it just me, or does the quoted social commentator imply that governments shouldn't tax their citizens?? (He talks about "taking money from the masses", a figure of speech often used by those who are against taxation)

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-07-05 07:37pm

Is it just me, or does the quoted social commentator imply that governments shouldn't tax their citizens??

It looks more like he espouses the idea that people that have more should be taxed a greater percentage.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-07-06 04:06am

SPOOFE wrote:
Is it just me, or does the quoted social commentator imply that governments shouldn't tax their citizens??
It looks more like he espouses the idea that people that have more should be taxed a greater percentage.

That could be his intention, but I don't think he expresses it clearly enough.

As for the idea of taxing people a greater percentage because of higher income - to me this sounds like discriminating towards people solely because they have a higher-than-average income... but the question is: Are there nations with such tax policies??

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-07-06 05:14am

As for the idea of taxing people a greater percentage because of higher income - to me this sounds like discriminating towards people solely because they have a higher-than-average income... but the question is: Are there nations with such tax policies??

Yes. The United States.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-07-06 05:17am

To clarify: One of the reasons that people have accused Bush's tax cut of being "for the rich" is that it lowers taxes an equal percentage across the board. This results in rich people - who are being taxed more money to begin with - getting a numerically larger refund than someone making $40,000 a year. Percentage-wise, it's an equal cut, but in terms of raw, hard cash, rich people got more money returned to them.... because they had more money taken from them in the first place.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-07-06 01:44pm

SPOOFE wrote:
As for the idea of taxing people a greater percentage because of higher income - to me this sounds like discriminating towards people solely because they have a higher-than-average income... but the question is: Are there nations with such tax policies??
Yes. The United States.

I thought that only could happen in Europe, South America or perhaps Asia.

Still, I don't think the idea of taxing people more because of high income is that awful - it's not as if they're seriously hurt by it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-06 01:51pm

SPOOFE wrote: Yes. The United States.

And whenever anyone tries to cut those taxes their outrage from everyone else even when the lower levels receive a larger cut percentage wise. It’s a stupid system and is basically based on the belief that the rich are less entitled to there own money.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-07-07 01:11am

Still, I don't think the idea of taxing people more because of high income is that awful - it's not as if they're seriously hurt by it.

I don't have a significant stance on the issue... I see taxing the poorer people a smaller percentage to be a sort of welfare, anyway. However, I find it utterly despiccable for people to claim that an equal percentage tax cut "helps the rich". It's a very deceptive form of pandering to the masses.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-07 01:14am

I can't think of a single country in the world whose income tax system is not progressive. America's is actually quite a bit less steeply progressive, but it's still pretty bad.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-08 04:21am

What's problematic seem to be the existance of 'loopholes' that the rich can take advantage of... but what would such a thng be? What are these 'loopholes'?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-08 05:40am

SPOOFE wrote: I don't have a significant stance on the issue... I see taxing the poorer people a smaller percentage to be a sort of welfare, anyway. However, I find it utterly despiccable for people to claim that an equal percentage tax cut "helps the rich". It's a very deceptive form of pandering to the masses.

Forget that, even in the more common case of the rich getting a lower percentage cut its attacked.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Guns, God, and Conservatives

Re: Guns, God, and Conservatives