Triskelos

I think this is quite fascinating, but I would lov...

2010-07-21T18:37:03.115-05:00

I think this is quite fascinating, but I would love to see this developed further before getting excited. If he's right, a huge amount of quantum mechanics (particular M-Theory/String Theory/Quantum Gravity) will have to be reworked. At present, the graviton (a theoretical boson that is supposed to conduct the gravitational force as a virtual particle) is one of two primary bosons not yet experimentally detected...the other being the Higgs Boson.

The Large Hadron Collider has sufficient energy levels required to detect the Higgs, but only has sufficient energy to detect the absence or escape of a graviton (if they exist, which this paper would seem to say they do not). When I say primary bosons, I mean those bosons that are significantly critical to our understanding of the standard model (the Higgs is part of the standard model, but the graviton is not...it is part of the quantum version of the standard model).

The part of this I am most interested in is what this means for our understanding of dark energy and dark matter. If gravity as we define it does not exist, then it would explain why we cannot detect either of these substances, which make up the largest percentage of the known universe by mass.

Not to move away too sharply from the point however, but I would like to draw an interesting analogy in this conversation. Having read the article, those individuals who have the most to lose by this being true have quite positive reactions. Quantum gravity theorists and the father of string theory (and I'd love to hear what the founder of M theory thinks) would have a significant amount to "lose" in that their theories are formulated on the existence of the graviton (or in the case of string theory, the existence of the graviton was predicted by the quantum version of the standard model, which would also mean they have serious errors/anomalies to work out). Yet they think this line of study should continue.

What if this analogy were applied to other things...say, oh I don't know...religion. Would people be as welcoming to arrive at truth, even if it meant the foundational principles they believe in where incorrect or grossly misunderstood.

This is perhaps why I love reason (and in particular science) so much. The conclusion follows the discovery, not the other way around.

ON JOBIN While the Separation of Church and State ...

2010-07-18T14:50:04.187-05:00

ON JOBIN
While the Separation of Church and State an issue that of the utmost importance for me I am wary not to fully endorse the views of Pastor Jobin lest I become one of the ignorant and selfish fools that jump on any bandwagon that will champion their cause.
Of Jobin’s words I found the most important to be:
“We are not so Holy that we can merely baptize a candidate, and never drink the poison of his words.”
501(c)(3)
Based on the tax code that allows for exemption it is apparent that many churches violate the rules of their exertion. In fact, I don’t know that I have ever been in a church (that I have visited multiple times) that did not violate this exemption. The Mormon campaign against Prop 8 is a gross violation and the church should be fined according to the penalties outlined in 501(c)(3) guidelines. If the violations persist then the IRS should consider revoking their status. This should be true of all churches. Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing a few SBC churches investigated where I have personally heard the endorsement of a candidate to a congregation of about 10,000 people.
CONCLUSION
Personally, I find the evidence for the Separation of Church and State as an ideal espoused by our Founding Fathers and promoted and protected by our founding documents to be conclusive. I also hope our country never sees the day when evangelicals have the influence to alter American society so that it mimics the conservative Christian notion of Kingdom of G-d. Such a society would be the very antithesis of the America of our Founding Fathers, which is the America I always hope to live in.
My question for those who agree with David Barton’s ideals or those who share the notion a Christian America:
Can you honestly say that you are objective in examining this issue, and that your Christian beliefs are not actually skewing your perspective? When you are given “ammo” to support what you would like the outcome to be, do you questions its validity or do you assume it is credible?

Consider the following founders and their beliefs....

2010-07-18T14:49:18.800-05:00

Consider the following founders and their beliefs. Many of these men are assumed to be Christians by modern evangelicals:
Washington-Deist Christian
Jefferson-Agnostic Christian
Adams-Unitarian that did not believe in eternal damnation
Franklin-Deist who championed toleration
Adam Smith-Deist
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This treaty was unanimously approved by the Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by John Adams.
While there was a proposal to insert the phrase, “Jesus Christ” into the preamble after our Lord, there was not enough support to pass the motion. From this we cannot say make any conclusions as to the number of Christians versus the number of Deists. What can be concluded is that the majority of delegates valued a Separation of Church and State.

Consider the following founders and their beliefs....

2010-07-18T14:49:16.391-05:00

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses ...

2010-07-18T14:48:21.823-05:00

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.
WHICH G-D?
It is important to understand that the Christianity of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin was a very different Christianity than that espoused by modern Protestants, Catholics, or Non-Denominational congregations. In fact, it probably wouldn’t even qualify as being Christianity at all in some cases. Of course, that would never be said because then evangelicals couldn’t continue insisting that this was and is a Christian nation. Conservative Christians will likely cringe at the claim I am about to make:
The G-d mentioned and alluded to in our founding documents is not the same G-d as that of the Judeo-Christian faith. It is the Humanist G-d, a god of Nature and of Reason. It is equivalent to the god that inspired the Enlightenment and also the ideals of the French Revolution.

His misuse or falsification of quotes will only hu...

2010-07-18T14:47:09.257-05:00

His misuse or falsification of quotes will only hurt the Christian cause. He has the support of many Christian groups that trust his research to accurate as well as some media outlets. It concerns me that Christian institutions like Liberty University and media personalities Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee widely promote his work. In the long run it will only further the stereotype that religion, especially Christianity and ignorance go hand-in-hand. Then again stereotypes usually contain a hint of the truth (maybe a bit more in this case). Does it bother anyone that some Christians will shamelessly use the work of anyone that supports their agenda without substantiating?

Another common argument for a Christian state is that our common law as influenced by British common law which was supposedly inspired by Christian thought. In actuality our common as inspired by British common law which as inspired by pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon common law.
JAMES MADISON
Madison’s was deeply concerned with any faction that could impose its will on the people (Google search for the Federalist Papers). Madison was well aware of the tyranny that could ensue if Church and State were not compartmentalized. In Madison’s, Detached Memoranda, he states the following:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

Another Madison quote:

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Notice that Madison believes that the Constitution intentionally provides Separation of Church and State. It is interesting because most opponents of the idea claim that because the explicit phrasing isn’t mentioned in the Constitution or other founding documents that this notion is just some liberal fallacy. However, I think many of these opponents (usually Christian) to the notion wouldn’t deny the Trinity of the Godhead despite its absence from scripture. Interestingly enough this very same work of Madison also deals with the idea of the tax exemption of religious entities. In the Detached Memoranda, Madison also voices his disdain for having a congressional chaplain or chaplain in any of the armed services (despite what Hannity thinks):

6) "A general dissolution of principles and m...

2010-07-18T14:44:15.865-05:00

6) "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader." - Samuel Adams
Samuel Adams was only a governor.
The truth, His cousin: President John Adams in a letter to Jefferson wrote. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."

7) "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
The truth =James Madison actually wrote "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."(8) "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? more or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

8) "There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet." - Noah Webster

9) "Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin
The truth =Benjamin Franklin actually wrote a month before he died "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion ... has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble." (12) He died a month later.
"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin

10) "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." - Abraham Lincoln

11) "I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens." - Thomas Jefferson
The truth=Thomas Jefferson actually wrote: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular Superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men women and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

MISCONCEPTIONS AND DECEIT There is a lot of suppor...

2010-07-18T14:37:41.466-05:00

MISCONCEPTIONS AND DECEIT
There is a lot of support for the conservative David Barton who is criticized by atheists and histoirians for using quotations of questionable authenticity to promote his agenda, which in some cases he has admitted to. He is the founder of an organization known as Wallbuilders an organization that believes in:
WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.
Some quotes of questionable validity. The effort to verify these quotes was led by Madison scholar, Professor Robert S. Alley:
1) "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" - Patrick Henry
The truth =Patrick Henry. Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. We have heard a great deal about the benevolence and holy zeal of our reverend clergy, but how is this manifested? Do they manifest their zeal in the cause of religion and humanities, by practicing the mild and benevolent precepts of the Gospel of Jesus? Do they feed the hungry and clother the naked? Oh no, gentlemen! Instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, these rapacious harpies would, were their powers equal to their will, snatch from the hearth of their honest parishoner his last hoe cake, from the widow and her orphan children their last milch cow, the last bed, nay, the last blanket from the lying-in woman!
He fought in court and stopped the paying of tax money to Christian ministers as was done in Europe

2) "The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." - Abraham Lincoln
The truth-Abraham Lincoln actually said: "Christianity is not my religion and the bible is not my book. I have never united myself in any church because I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian doctrine and dogma." Lincoln never joined any church and was never baptized, looking upon it as superstition. His wife said: "my husband is not a Christian

3) "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." - George Washington
The truth=George Washington FactsIn 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said in a sermon: "Washington is no more than a Unitarian, if anything." Washington refused to take communion, looking upon it as superstition. He refused to ever kneel in church according to his wife and minister

4) "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court case)

5) "The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drown from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." - Noah Webster

“Conquest and tyranny, at some early period, dispo...

2010-07-18T14:36:25.685-05:00

“Conquest and tyranny, at some early period, dispossessed man of his rights, and he is now recovering them.”-Thomas Paine
In the discussion of Church and State it is quite common to find in the forefront Locke, Jefferson, and Thomas Paine. While I intend to mention most of them I think this discussion is best moved forward with a look at James Madison, the proclaimed Father of the Constitution. I will present his ideas, which I believe clearly demonstrate an advocacy for a Wall of Separation. I will also bring into question the concept of G-d as it relates to our founding documents. Lastly I will touch on the words of Jobin as well as the 501(c)(3) tax exemption for churches.
Consider the common argument among conservative Christians who like to claim that the notion involving the Separation of Church and State is a notion not alluded to in our founding documents or that is uniquely Jeffersonian. Here are the words of Sean Hannity :
"It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state." (8/25/03)
"You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights [James Madison] hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do." (9/4/02)
(I will come back to this second quote.)

Few topics are more provoking, I cant wait.

2010-07-11T21:44:28.739-05:00

Few topics are more provoking, I cant wait.

Diakonou, what is the due date? As to the article...

2010-07-11T17:45:02.179-05:00

Diakonou, what is the due date?

As to the article, I do look forward to it. Particularly, to a anti-separationist Christian rebuttal to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (which forbids the federal government from establishing a religion), 14th Amendment (which causes the various states to be subject to the 1st Amendment), 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli (which states that the United States is in no way a Christian nation, and as a treaty approved by the Senate has binding authority at the level of the Constitution), and the Johnson Amendment (which prohibits any 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization such as a church from making political endorsements).

I really hope that your argument will have something to say about these points, or perhaps a conservative rebuttal about how the largely evangelical community is attempting to hijack American history and remake it in a Christian image.

Aiden, I could respond now, but ironically enough...

2010-07-11T17:24:36.415-05:00

Aiden,

I could respond now, but ironically enough and completely unassociated with your article, I am working on an article covering the same issue from what you MIGHT call an opposing view. I do intend on proposing a more informed conservative view that will share the ideas of some of the conservative extremists as you suggest and with Pastor Jimi Jobin who you quote here.

I look forward to completing my research but may be delayed due to the coming arrival of my first born. I can imagine I won't have as much time as I would like when he comes. But I do look forward to getting into the debate.

hello~welcome my world~<. . . . . . . . . . . ....

2010-05-12T09:09:20.937-05:00

hello~welcome my world~<. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sorry I have been away for so long. With a baby o...

2010-05-10T21:35:00.233-05:00

Sorry I have been away for so long. With a baby on the way I have had little time but would like to add some thoughts.

While I will not go to the extent to say this is a socialist agenda, I will call it short sighted and expensive. First, I feel I can offer a counter point of view that will bring its own biases. As some of you may know, I work in the health care industry as a Financial Analyst. I see things many of you do not see including the impact of Medicare and Medicaid payouts for my company's services, or the lack thereof at times as well. The government already demands the lowest costs for health services when they cover an American's health care bill. For the most part, a lot of this compensation produces a loss to the company. Those familiar with accounting, consider the principle of Activity Based Cost. What this considers is not only the cost of goods sold but every other cost associated with producing the good purchased. Medicare and Medicaid too often do not cover the full extent of the cost to the company. To some states' credit, they are performing a state audit to consider how to fairly compensate companies for their services, most are not.

I say all this to point out that by implementing a system like this, it does not consider so many variables that will impact not just insurance but all healthcare companies in the US. I have heard of some doctors who will not even accept Medicare or Medicaid patients because they too often do receive payment. Yet, somehow this government program is going to work better.

Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be change, but this healthcare reform is short sighted because it does not consider the impact down the road to companies beyond the insurance company. The city of Louisville relies heavily upon the healthcare industry for jobs. What could happen to a city like Louisville if so many of its citizens lose their jobs?

Second, I also come from a conservative biase. For me, this isn't even about Republican vs. Democrat. This is about fiscal responsibility. Obama made a platform about how government out of control spending is hurting our country and appropriately so. But how is this any different than his predecessor? His legislation has quadrupled the deficit and this healthcare bill isn't even proven across the world. Yes, some countries have achieved success, but so many have also received negative results.

Why completely overhaul a system when we do not know if it will actually work? Are we to trust a government with this kind of responsibility when it struggles with its current initiatives (i.e. the Post Office, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)?
I believe in change, but I believe this is the wrong kind of change. Government is important but it is to serve as a guiding hand and not as the hand that feeds us.

Joy often comes after sorrow, like morning after n...

2010-05-06T19:23:13.479-05:00

Joy often comes after sorrow, like morning after night...................................................

與其爭取不可能得到的東西，不如善自珍惜運用自己所擁有的..........................

2010-05-01T11:21:26.182-05:00

與其爭取不可能得到的東西，不如善自珍惜運用自己所擁有的........................................

1. C 2. C 3. D 4. C 5. D 6. C 7. C 8. D 9. C 10. B...

2010-04-07T19:08:40.379-05:00

1. C
2. C
3. D
4. C
5. D
6. C
7. C
8. D
9. C
10. B
11. B
12. A
13. TRUE
14. TRUE
15. C
16. TRUE
17. D
18. C

Here are a few final questions: 1. From what data...

2010-04-07T01:03:08.857-05:00

Here are a few final questions:
1. From what data are the results based?
2. Who is responsible for putting together the stats?
3. What is their agenda in giving these facts?

I would say that statistics aren't neutral. We all know how they can be skewed depending on variables, who is doing the counting, etc. I would also say that comparing the U.S. to other 'developed' countries is very much an apple-orange comparison. What other developed country in the world, besides perhaps Great Britain, has the diversity of populations that we do? What other country has already reached approximately 50% of its births (est. 2010 numbers) as being from a non-majority race? I would say that most of these numbers obviously apply to lower income brackets of whites as much as they do to minority groups and have much more to do with economics than race. Do whites in rural Appalachia have better health care access than blacks in urban Chicago? Probably not.

Money follows money and success follows success. For those people of any race who have figured that out and have stopped either waiting for or accepting mere handouts and have sought to make something of themselves, there are plenty of health care options and access to a 'better' life, whatever they believe that to be. For people in developed countries, that often means leaving the 'bucolic' hills and communities of their birth and flocking to the slums and shantytowns that surround the cities of their respective countries. Does that mean that they are all desperate though? I have seen with my own eyes thousands of people dressed in three-piece business suits and women in heels pouring down streets of mud out of the largest slum in Sub-Saharan Africa. These were not dehumanized proles from some Orwellian dystopia. I knew many people from this sort of background, and while their plight was hard and uphill, living in that slum was a step-up from where they had been in their village. Again, no one made them move there. It was not a perfect place, by no means, but it allowed people the opportunity to make some money and hopefully give their children something more economically, socially, and educationally than what they had growing up.

Sounds just a little familiar to our own story here, doesn't it? People didn't crowd our shores because the government told them that they would take care of them. In fact, many left in the 20th century from their respective homelands for that very reason of intrusive governments. All most of our ancestors wanted was to be left alone and be allowed the opportunity to prosper in peace. For most of us, that is the story of our families.

A couple of things that aren't directly related to this article but need to also be raised are certain opinions that are being touted as political dogma. The first is that health care access is at least a Constitutionally-mandated right and perhaps a God-given right to a person simply for being alive. This is both untrue and a disservice to humans as responsible free-agents. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't help each other, but to say that it is the government's job to make sure that every citizen deserves some measure of equality in health care is an exercise of pure statism. (Not coincidentally, this process was instituted by the European fascist regimes of the 1930's).

Second, even if a central government could provide better health care than the private sector(and they can't, statistically speaking), what political and social costs would be the result? Are we willing as a nation to have the government dictate that much more than they already do? Are we willing to be entitled to a particular party or the government as a whole that much more?

I will give my guesses with a few additional quest...

2010-04-07T01:02:42.865-05:00

I will give my guesses with a few additional questions, thoughts, and caveats:

1. C 29th (Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, et al--homogenous societies all--can they really be compared fairly to the U.S.?)
2. C 4x
3. D 11-20th (Do we still smoke a lot in the US?)
4. C 10x (There are a lot of factors involved here.)
5. D None of the above (Is there chronic civil war in Harlem?)
6. B 2.2 billion (How is this measured?)
7. A half the amount (What is a supermarket?)
8. D Asians It's the rice and soy, baby.
9. C Wealthy, but only because it contains a lot of other factors (education, opportunities for food, exercise, etc)
10. B But this one seems fairly subjective. How would you prove it in exclusion of the other factors?
11. A Is this unnatural? Unavoidable? A crime? Is it so bad for the bottom 30/60/90 that this is true? What if each person on the bottom was still making 30K a year? Would that still be a problem? Compared to a few hundred years ago, however, that is definitely the case, I would argue. Poorer classes on the whole today have much more opportunity, access, and resources than their peasant, serf, and peon counterparts had before the rise of industry, capital, and corporation. Impersonal, yes. But more opportunity for health care (besides the local herbalist and quack)--definitely.
12. A None No, we still allow employers and employees to work these things out.
13. True. The poorer brackets of blacks as a whole are worse off economically, socially, and educationaly than they were before FDR and the omniscient helping hand brought them en masse to the Democratic fold.
14. True. A subjective line doesn't really tell much though. Perhaps a better indicator would be relative spending/earning power based on a person's geography, education, etc.
15. C There are plenty of amoral scumbags out there who are fine graduates of a K-12 school system and culture that teaches them that they are little more than animals. Why not act like them?
16. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'marked increase/decrease.' Is this in absolute numbers or percentage of the population? More people have obviously used the program in the decades that followed whenever that program was put into place (1966?).
17. D 5.8 acres. Again, I wonder how different things were before 1950, when minority populations began moving into previosly white dominated neighborhoods. Did those neighborhoods already have limited parks? Are the majority of the 'white' areas only recent recipients of more park acreage due to design trends of the last few decades? That is fairly color-blind as people have lived wherever they want to since the 1960's.
18. C 12.8 Again, how exactly do you measure child poverty? I suppose it is based on which children belong to which parents. Trends are that either historically poorer groups or new poor immigrants typically have the most children. That probably isn't an American phenomenon, but perhaps most easily seen here as we have the largest non-war-related immigrant population in the world.

That’s sounds fallacious just on the face of it. F...

2010-03-26T19:09:01.466-05:00

That’s sounds fallacious just on the face of it. First of all you didn’t bother to define rich, which is a very relative term. Regardless, I will move forward in the dialogue. While there isn’t an ideal formula to measure economic strength there are statistical indicators that contribute pieces to the puzzle. Despite its limitations, GDP or gross domestic product has been used as just such an indicator. If you look at total GDP the U.S. even in an economic downturn beats the competition hands down. However, if you look at GDPPC or GDP per capita you have an average of how much an individual contributes to the overall picture, which accounts for efficiency. By comparison, the US is only 6th in the world when GDPPC is compared. Two of the countries ahead of the US are actually socialist democracies (Norway and Luxembourg). How then can we be the poster child for, capitalism an economic system whose very cornerstone is efficiency, and still reconcile this? Consider the average disposal income of the US, about $21,000 per person (http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income), and now consider that the two countries that beat it hands down in GDPPC aren’t even listed in top rankings of disposable income per capita. That is quantitative data that supports that the idea that you need rich people to stimulate an economy. Furthermore, they enjoy this economic efficiency while providing universal healthcare. This further demonstrates that socialist ideals and economic inefficiencies do not have to be incompatible. What many liberals in America wish for is not socialism. Instead they see that other nations, some of which happen to be socialist democracies, have aspects of their economic system that could be borrowed to improve our way of life. To your comment about doctors getting screwed-years of school does not and should not be equated with higher earning potential. Many Ph.d’s, the original doctor’s, do not necessarily make much relative to their educational investment. Yes, while money, status, and ego are at least a small part of every physician’s motivation for attending medical school, I have never met one whose primary reasoning for pursuing their profession wasn’t to help others and make a difference. Your article is entitled Healthcare Concerns and yet you offer no legitimate concerns about the substance of the healthcare proposal. You have offered vague generalities that contribute little to a real discussion on the issue.

The question I have initially involves your statem...

2010-03-26T19:08:05.769-05:00

The question I have initially involves your statement regarding the fairness of a government imposed requirement to have healthcare. The obvious implication is that the government should not be allowed to mandate how its people spend their income. First, where do you draw the line? Consider that several if not all of our bloggers have had some degree of private education. Do we have a right to say that don’t wish for tax dollars to fund an educational system that we did not benefit from? That is actually a loaded question, because even though some of us did not benefit directly from a publicly funded education we have all benefitted from it indirectly. The monies that fund higher education also lead to research and development and technological advancement that all can appreciate. A second question, this research and development comes from government spending. Does that make it socialist? Can you define what you think socialism is? Is every socialist idea bad, or should we consider some embracing some of them? I say this because I think that universal healthcare is an idea that is consistent with socialist ideals, but it in and of itself is not a slippery slope to socialism. I also think it’s contradictory to claim that we are the greatest nation in the world when we are the only industrialized nation to not have universal healthcare. How can boast about quality of life when healthcare, such a major factor in quality of life, is beyond the financial reach of many of our citizens? The point is simply this, liberals are not idiots that to quote you, “don’t understand the situation and think ‘Yay more cheap/free stuff from the government!’" On the contrary, most are quite intelligent, but have a different worldview. This worldview values the utilitarian benefit of a healthy society over the individual autonomy of choosing where every dollar of their paycheck is funneled (I think Moses and Jesus would approve). Do we really need rich people to stimulate our economy?

In the first place, I think it's a bit tendent...

2010-03-25T01:20:25.019-05:00

In the first place, I think it's a bit tendentious to say that "the primary idea behind [health care reform] is to force everyone to have some type of healthcare." Most people actually like the idea of being cared for when they're sick; one doesn't typically have to force it upon them.

It is correct, however, that people are being required to purchase health insurance, which does indeed need to be paid for. And that requirement, also known as the individual mandate, is a direct consequence of the perfectly legitimate and long overdue end to the practice of health insurance companies' discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Horror of horrors, now that HCR has passed, you will no longer be SOL should you lose your job after getting sick. No longer do parents need to worry about their children getting asthma and forevermore being all-but-uninsurable.

The problem is, if you don't let insurers turn down customers with pre-existing conditions, healthy customers no longer have any incentive to purchase health insurance before they get sick. Meaning the only people purchasing health insurance are high-risk or already-ill (and therefore costly) people. In order to mitigate that risk, insurers would raise prices, to the point where, once again, people couldn't afford it, sick or not.

Enter the individual mandate. (Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn has already said as much). In order to spread that risk (and cost), you require people, everyone, to purchase insurance. But, of course, if you require people to purchase insurance, and they don't have the means to do so, nobody comes out ahead. So, you push Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level. And you subsidize cost up to 400% of the poverty level. And you allow for earlier buy-in to Medicare. And you give tax credits to families so they can afford the insurance. And you give tax credits to small businesses to encourage them to get their employees insurance.

To the point that the aforementioned programs (along with Social Security) are failures, I would ask how many seniors you know who are willing to give any of them up? How many families living under the poverty level are eager to do without Medicaid or SCHIP? How many congresspersons, Republican or Democrat, are running on platforms of doing away with those programs? The answer for all three questions are the same: none. Because the programs aren't failures; to the contrary, they're astounding successes. Poverty among the elderly isn't anything compared to what it was before the implementation of the social welfare net you castigate so cavalierly. Look at the numbers previous to the New Deal. They're off the charts!

Finally, you seem to be under the impression that the recent HCR put into place some sort of "government healthcare." There is no such thing. There is no public option, though not for lack of trying on the part of liberal Democrats in the House and Senate. There are going to be government-run exchanges, on which individuals will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers, but that's the extent to which the government is expanding into healthcare.

As to the doctors, I doubt very seriously the AMA is going to decide to relax their caps on medical school students: the supply of doctors will remain very much constrained in the near future. Low supply + high demand for medical services = a very good living for a very long time.

Both of the books mentioned here are excellent. I ...

2010-03-20T18:37:07.486-05:00

Both of the books mentioned here are excellent. I cannot wait for the movie. I am not sure that I have previously read many books in this particular genre, but these two really kept me interested. Good recommendations Aiden.

I somewhat misspoke in the previous comment. When...

2010-03-17T22:57:25.399-05:00

I somewhat misspoke in the previous comment. When I say that difficult theological truths like the Trinity and the like are contradictions, I meant to say that they were "seeming" contradictions or paradoxes. For, in the end, I do not see these truths as contradictory, but complementary. Ultimately, the variable that pushes my mind over to the complementary view of things here is - reason tempered by a large dose of faith.

HH, With regards to the comment about the last w...

2010-03-17T22:53:49.343-05:00

HH,

With regards to the comment about the last words of Jesus - I don't see it as a stretch to see both of the statements uttered at the same time. If you see in John's account, you see the mention that he gave up his spirit. If I was chronologically looking at this, I think that Jesus said It is finished first and then gave up his spirit in a cry and bowed his head in death. The words, "It is finished" are words of somewhat satisfaction in that the propitiatory work of atonement has been completed and he can enter rest, resurrection, and glory. He had finished the task the Father sent him to do. I see them both as having validity.

With regards to reason and presuppositions, I too agree that reason has a HUGE part to the faith. I am not saying that in the least. What I am saying is that if you depend solely on reason to try to "make it all work out" you will be disappointed. For, the Bible and Christian doctrine are fraught with contradictions that cannot easily be rationalized and understood. Cases in point would include the Trinity, Christ as the God-man, the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the Free Will of man (especially in salvation), the already-not yet aspect of realized eschatology of the Kingdom of God, etc.

No, I love using reason in thinking on Systematic Theology, but the Enlightenment and the subsequent 300 years has shown that pure reliance on reason to figure out the existence and truths of God along with trying to find the "historical Jesus" have proved to be futile exercises.

Reason definitely has its proper place and it is crucial, but it is aided by the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

Remember, Paul the Apostle himself had an extremely high view of reason in Romans 12:1, but it is in the context of worship, and conformity to Christ:

I urge you brothers to present yourselves to God as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God. This is your spiritual / logical (the Greek word here is logikon, where we get the word logic) act of worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your MIND, that you may know the will of God, his good, pleasing, and perfect will.

Gaius