Render Unto Ceasar: Was Jesus a Secularist?

by Nomad

Jesus, the founder of the Christian Church, never precisely stated his opinions on mixing religion with government. However, one passage from the New Testament supports the theory that when it came to religious affairs and government, Jesus thought they were separate things altogether.

Christians are familiar- or they ought to be familiar- with this story from the life of Jesus, in which, he outsmarts a shifty lawyer. 

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.

“Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Matthew 22:15-22

That’s probably a familiar passage even to people who are not all that devoted to the Christian faith. Besides showing that Jesus could argue as well as any lawyer of his time, or that his audience was not merely gullible village folk- it also demonstrates something else. Jesus himself believed that the realm of the government and the realm of religion were not to be intermixed. 

In his time, the powers of Caesar was not merely the head of government but, as a emperor of the known world, he was the government. His obscure whims required absolute obedience. 

Judea was little more than an occupied colony of Rome and dissent- even in its mildest form- was not tolerated. It was a case of "you are either with us or against us."

Deconstructing the Meme: “The Worst President Since Carter”

by Nomad

If you are unlucky enough to encounter a die-hard neo-conservative or tea-party member, you are quite likely to hear them use this phrase to castigate President Obama.

"Obama? He’s the worst president since Carter.”

Its use has all of the hallmarks of Rovian propaganda. As a phrase, it is mindlessly repeated without any clarification, and dropped into a discussion like a finely-rolled ball of manure as if these twin statements were facts beyond question or debate.

According to its own logic, Obama is a terrible president just like Jimmy Carter was a terrible president. They rarely elaborate or feel the need to, since it is, they seem to think, a matter of common knowledge.

Lately even Candidate Romney has been attempting to put this comparison into use. Recently Romney said. “Who would’ve guessed we’d look back at the Carter years as the good ol’ days, you know?” To some, that kind of talk smacks of desperation.

Given the disastrous interval between the years 2000 and 2008, I thought the phrase "the worst president" deserved a closer look. 

Admit It, America

Earlier this year, an interviewer asked Mitt Romney to clarify a remark about public resentment regarding Wall Street conduct and inequality. He had said that such talk was driven by “envy.” He had also stated that a public debate about inequitable wealth distribution in this country was not necessary.

The interviewer asked him:

I’m curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?

His arrogant response was off-the-cuff and, as with so many things Romney says without long consultations with his handlers, he revealed his real mentality and put his foot in it.

You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.

Given the weak state of the economy and the candidate's extreme wealth (a personal fortune reportedly around $250 million) it was a strange thing for any person running for office to say.

According to one source, over the last 20 years, America has had the highest or nearly highest poverty rates for individual adults, families and children among 31 developed countries. Meanwhile, the super-rich get just getting richer. According to the Aug. 23, 2010 New Yorker reported that between 2002 and 2007, the top one percent of rich Americans have seen their share of the national income double. 

For an interesting and enlightening look at depth of the problem, I recommend this link. Here's one excerpt:

In the decades after World War II, the wealthiest Americans were heavily taxed, with marginal rates over 90 percent on income above $400,000 (Bennett, 2010). Massive government investments in infrastructure, education, technology, and knowledge-based enterprises spread those tax dollars around, redistributing the nation’s wealth and creating “social value” (Alperovitz, 2009, p. 88) that was available to all citizens.

All that changed when Reagan became president and began a series of tax cuts which largely benefited the wealthiest Americans. One effect of these cuts has been a dwindling flow of revenue to spend on the infrastructure and for social investment.

(S)ince the late 1970s, wages have lost ground for the average worker while executive compensation has soared (Noblet, 2006). In 1979, the top one percent of Americans earned 33.1 times what the bottom 20 percent earned, but by 2000, this multiplier had more than doubled to 88.5 (Hogan, 2005).

Wealth distribution is even more skewed, with the top 20 percent of Americans owning 84 percent of all national wealth, while the bottom 20 percent own a mere 0.1 percent (Bennett, 2010). The United States has not seen this level of wealth inequality since the Roaring Twenties (Noblet, 2006; Tyson, 2004).

Had there been any one area of the economy that the conservative Republicans could point to and claim success, then an argument could be made. However, by following these policies, (and by launching two poorly conducted wars and allowing Wall Street to become an unregulated casino) these kind of wealth distribution has brought to nation to the brink of financial ruin.

And yet, according to Romney, nothing is amiss except the imagined jealousy of the 99%.

_________________________

Related articles

• What Class Divide? Rich and Poor, Red and Blue Agree on Wealth Distribution (moneyland.time.com)
• Romney's Disconnect With Average Americans (crooksandliars.com)
• Romney, the Unlikable (thedailybeast.com)

Seattle Shooting: Compassion and a Homeless Man

by Nomad

On Wednesday of this week, Seattle was the scene of another inexplicable random act of violence. A mentally-disturbed man armed   with two .45-caliber handguns,   walked into a corner coffee house and started shooting the patrons, leaving five people dead.

After stealing the hat from one of the victims, the attacker marched away and killed another person, and stole her car. Later turning the gun on himself, the man, Ian Stawicki, ended the murderous drama in the usual way. 

(This particular incident was somewhat marginalized by the horrific cannibalistic attack on a homeless man in Florida.)

It seems like these incidents have become so common these days, the coverage hardly makes any lasting impression on the public conscience. It's amazing how quickly society moves on.

Anyway, I found a story  related to this shooting that caught my attention. I thought I would share it. 

Police credit homeless felon for helping at tragic shooting

I agree that the article is a moving story, but I am not sure the reason why. Could it be because so many people think that homeless people have no feelings? 

Isn't it ironic that people could think that the homeless would lack a sense of empathy and compassion for a stranger in need?

____________________________

Related articles

• Compassion (thehomelessguy.blogspot.com)
• How government makes homelessness worse (wnd.com)
• Seattle gunman kills five people in shooting spree (theprovince.com)

The Angry Right Wing Voter: Have We Gone Too Far? 2/2

by Nomad

In the previous post, we examined the problem of rage, hate and anger that seems to have become an integral part of American politics these days. The questions I want to look at in this post deals with the sources for this anger. Apart from the general state of the economy, where does all this bitterness come from? Who is inciting this overreaction? How exactly do politicians benefit from the angry mob? 

Well Springs of Anger

One of the problems with having a two-party system is the strong possibility of polarization; when the middle ground dissolves and the only voices you hear are the most strident and angry. 
This puts the mainstream media- which has long surrendered its impartiality to its commercial demands- in something of a quandary. A sensible discussion is next to impossible.

Present the unadulterated truth, and one side is insulted and claims bias. The next best thing is to try to give equal time to both sides. But in the past, this too has made neither side particularly happy.