googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Liberalism: The Cult of Intolerance

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Liberalism: The Cult of Intolerance

My recent visitor, Carvin, has given me a lot of points to discuss. In a reply to him, I mentioned I would make use of some of his comments to write future blog posts. Many of the points he raised are of interest to everyone.

His first comment was to a post I had written titled, “And You Think We're Embarrassing?” You can read the post for yourself, of course, but my main point was how certain liberals (like Pam Platt of the Courier Journal) seem embarrassed by Bible believing Christians while liberals seem to embrace outrageous antics like those seen at Gay Pride parades. In his response to my point, Carvin said:

[M]ost liberals are perfectly fine when you limit your trouble to an opinion which you express. Your certainly do run the risk of being considered homophobic, but that comes with the territory of the fundamentalist view of homosexuality- it is, in fact, homophobic. It is a Biblical interpretation that is used in the oppression and control of non-hetero people. Again, just having a view on this is still fine. Most liberals would be quite happy if the fundamentalist view was kept within house- that is, if you feel it is wrong to be in a homosexual relationship, this is fine: just don't force anyone else to live by your standard.

If liberalism were just someone's opinion, I would happily agree with Carvin. Everyone is entitled to his opinion – even a wrong opinion. Liberals are wrong about a lot of things and I can live with them being wrong. The real problem, though, is that liberals aren't content with expressing their opinions. Liberals are elitists who not only think they know what's best for every, they aggressively seek ways to impose their standards on everyone else.

Do you think I'm exaggerating? I've been writing this blog for almost 7 years now and I have more than a few examples of this occurring. Let me remind you of just a few that I've already discussed.

Compelling Christians to comply with secular standards probably occurs most often in public schools. In June, 2006, valedictorian, Brittan McComb, was asked to give a speech to her graduating class. She was a Christian, and wanted to give thanks to God for His role in her life. School officials warned her to omit references to God and on the day of her graduation, when she began making reference to God, the school officials turned off her mic. This was her speech talking about her achievements yet school officials didn't think she should be thanking God. I guess it would have been OK if she thanked Oprah.

When the Creation Museum opened, a group called DefCon attempted to thwart their efforts. A board member of DefCon was also an elected, public school official who encouraged public school teachers to sign a petition against the museum. What ever happened to the supposed “separation of church and state”?

Nature wrote an article called, “Dealing with Design” wherein it explained to educators how they should teach students to reconcile their religious beliefs (as in the creation account in Genesis) with “science” (meaning “evolution”). This is not just teaching evolution; it's an active attempt to dissuade a student away from his biblical belief and accept a secular belief.

Do I even need to talk about the National Center For Science Education? The groups stated purpose for existing is to combat a belief in creation among students. More recently, the group also has been recruited to combat doubters in global warming.

But of course, liberals don't just limit their attempts to control to just students. In 2001, a lesbian couple sued two Christian doctors who had refused to provide artificial insemination on the grounds of their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple was able to get the service elsewhere but sued in order to punish the Christian doctors for not complying to the liberal lesbians' standards.

Because of his support of traditional marriage, the president of Chick-fil-A was told by an Chicago alderman, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.” So, in this case, who is forcing their standard on whom?

Obamacare is forcing all employers, including businesses owned by Christians, to provide birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, regardless of the employers' religious objections. Not only is the employer's right to practice his religion made subservient to the employee's unenumerated “right” to an abortion, the employer is ordered by law to pay for it!

There are even more that I have cited on my blog and many, many more that I haven't. People can't buy 32 oz colas in NY because they might get fat. McDonald's can't put toys in their happy meals because parents can't say no to their kids. School officials search students' lunchboxes to make sure parents are doing their job. Parents can't have school vouchers because they might send their kids to white supremacy schools (I'm not kidding). Need I remind Carvin that he himself has endorsed compelling business owners to pay higher wages because the liberal thinks the wage should be more. The list goes on.

When liberals think something is right, they don't just talk about it. They don't just express their opinion about it. They want to force people to comply with it. They do it because they think they're the experts and we just don't know how to take care of ourselves. See this video and hear it for yourself. Time after time after time, liberals are happy to compel people to conform to the liberal standard. I don't blog about liberals just because they annoy me (though they do). I blog about liberals because they are a threat to liberty.


Carvin said...

This is a bit all over the place, so I'll just respond to your points in order.

In Brittany's case, she agreed to censor herself. She submitted an edited version of her speech, which had to be approved by school officials, and it passed. She lied to them though, since she then proceeded to give her original speech. If she never agreed to the censorship, I'd be on her side to some degree. And I oppose the limitation of rights of minors, though it is well established. In school, minors can have their lockers raided without warrant, they can not speak freely, they are punished without trial or appeal... it goes on. But that exists with or without religion being involved.

The DefCon thing is a bit complex... I can't find the original petition. From what I can gather, the attempt was to make a statement, not have the government act in a certain way. The idea being that there would be vocal opposition to a deceptive and unscientific museum like the Creation Museum. I've seen their exhibits and know this is accurate. Further so, just because someone is an educator does not make them a public employee. Many who signed likely were, but many likely were also private school teachers. The petition, the best I can tell, does not indicate a statement from public employees, just a group of people (teachers) acting as citizens. Statements from 'DefCon Clark' on Daily Kos seem to confirm to all these assumptions I'm making. I have no idea if he was actually part of 'DefCon' though. See link here:
Doesn't seem like he wants to pad lock the place.

Read the Nature article. Honestly, I don't see much problem. Intelligent Design itself is an attempt to reconcile religion and science, as is the creation origin model. I am not sure if this is the best worded article, but the point is clear. More discussion is needed, as is more respect of religion of students by their professors.

Also, I feel every use of science in the article meant science. Thinking they meant evolution by it seems mostly projection.

The NCSE's stated goal seems reasonable. It only says it wants it out of classrooms, not out of students. Evolution is the best understanding of our biological past science has produced. If we don't want to teach it, we are saying we don't want science in the classroom. Likewise, it isn't prudent to teach every sideline hypothesis or model, especially when they hold stronger ulterior motives than scientific reasoning.

For the lesbian's case: recognize that the entire concept here is intolerance. The doctors were intolerant of the couple's relationship and denied them service. This is Jim Crow level discrimination. The doctors have no more right to do this than deny service to an interracial couple, a Jewish couple, an unmarried woman or anyone else based on personal prejudices. There is no need to be tolerant of intolerance, disrespect, mistreatment or abuse. Being a Christian does not give you the right to treat people as lesser than others. As a Christian, I am personally disgusted by what they did.

I have been outspoken about Chick-Fil-A for a long time, and have boycotted their delicious food since well before the remarks made by Dan Cathy. This is because they donate or funnel money, sometimes through the WinShape Group, to hate groups like Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family. To that end, I believe that those who try to shop responsibly should boycott them till that stops. But I've never advocated government intervention. Most people I talked with back in the day when this got heated were of the same mind. The vast majority opposed government officials blocking CFA from building in their cities.

Carvin said...

I think your point on the Affordable Care Act is a little moot for multiple reasons. Hobby Lobby, the leader in this charge, includes in their mutual funds investments in companies that make abortion inducing drugs, as well as insurance companies that provide for abortions.
More importantly, the ACA will be decreasing the amount of abortions as a whole, thanks to support for better contraceptive access, especially to the poor who have the greatest number of unwanted pregnancies. It also does this because most of the poor will have more money and feel more capable of taking care of a child. Beyond that, insurance is part of what an employee earns, not a gift. If an employee gets an abortion with the money they earn, it's not the employer's doing. It is no different if an employee chooses to use their insurance in that manner.

Also, almost everyone hates the stupidity of Bloomberg for making that nonsense law about large drinks. But I don't consider him a liberal anyway. He was a lapdog of Wall Street, using the police to discriminate against minorities while also unconstitutionally opposing Occupy. I believe the government should oppose the sale of certain things, but large sodas is not one of them.

I need a reference on the searching of lunch boxes, but honestly- I want something done if a child doesn't have lunch. No child should go hungry ever.

School vouchers are a proven failure. They bring education down for everyone, since public schools get less money and voucher schools are so bad that they under perform underfunded public schools. This is besides the fact that this violates the establishment clause, which is the concern which Clinton mentioned (though did so poorly).

I believe in compelling businesses to pay a minimum wage because it is the best thing for the economy as well as unethical to allow someone to pay less than a living wage for 40 hours of work. It's not just unconscionable, it is irresponsible. I also believe in compelling businesses not to dump garbage into drinking water, not lying to sell products, and that they must adhere to contracts. The government compels many things because it makes everyone's lives better. Unless you are an advocate for anarchy, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

And yes, as a person about to be a father, I can assure you that a teacher is going to know more about education than me. Otherwise anyone could be a teacher. Just because I own a car doesn't mean I know more than a mechanic.

If making sure everyone is respected, no one is abused, and that everyone has equal rights is compelling people to a liberal standard... guilty as charged. But I don't want to stand by idly as children are abused, lies are substituted for facts, companies abuse everything they can and the government becomes so weak it can't do what it is designed to do: be a power created by the citizens to work for the citizens.

Liberals don't ask you to believe evolution happened, they just don't want religion taught in schools. If you have a religion this should be really important to you, since your freedom or religion is only as secure as your neighbor's freedom. Liberals don't ask you to like abortions, just don't run women's lives. You don't have to like homosexuality, just let them have the rights they deserve as people.

All of these things come down to one of two things. One; a person who is liberal against liberal beliefs. Two; a complete misunderstanding of the purpose and motives of liberals. Much of this comes from thinking that liberals are purposefully antagonistic to your world. Liberals, most of all, wish to secure the rights and dignity of everyone. That brings liberals into conflict with those using 'traditional' views which oppose these things. Fighting disrespect and abuse is not intolerance, though. It is justice, it is love, and it is part of Christian responsibility.

RKBentley said...

Brittany should not have been asked to censor her speech at all. Even if she initially agreed, it is still wrong that she was even asked in the first place.
The DefCon petition was a statment and not a policy. However, the people who signed it were specifically invoking their status "as educators." So this was an elected public official encouraging public school teachers to use their capacity as a teacher to condemn a religious belief. Would you believe the reverse would be appropriate? That is, what if Rep. Schlomer had asked public school teachers to sign a statement saying they endorsed the Genesis account of creation?
People are welcome to reconcile their religious beliefs with their understanding of science. My point is that it's not the job of science teachers to explain to kids how the kids' religious beliefs should be compromised to fit the scientific views. Just let the teachers teach science and test the kids on whether they understand the material.
You're absolutely blind to the doctors' right to practice their own religion. Why must the doctors compromise on their religious beliefs in order to provide services to a lesbian couple who can ()and did) get the same service elsewhere. Like I said, YOU ARE ALL FOR FORCING PEOPLE TO CONFORM TO YOUR IDEOLOGY. The doctors didn't say the lesbians couldn't have the procedure. They only said they wouldn't provide it.
You're welcome to boycott Chick-fil-A. However, FREE SPEECH means a person can make political and religious statements without political persecution. Again, my point is that liberals aren't content with merely disagreeing. They want to compel others to conform - by force or threat.
There is an enumerated right that congress cannot prohibit people from freely exercising their religion. That right is infringed when Christian business owners are forced to provide services against their religious principles. Since when does the unenumerated right to an abortion, or the unenumerated right to be gay, trump my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to exercise my religion?
Whether or not school vouchers are a good strategy is beside the point. Hillary said plainly that she wouldn't stand for them because some parents might want to send their kids to white supremecy schools. She thinks parents can only have a choice on government approved subjects.
And I rest my case when you say, "I believe in compelling businesses to pay a minimum wage because it is the best thing for the economy as well as unethical to allow someone to pay less than a living wage for 40 hours of work. It's not just unconscionable, it is irresponsible." You feel it is OK to compel people to comply to your standard of fairness.

You said, "Liberals don't ask you to believe evolution happened." YES THEY DO. Didn't you read the cases I cited? It's not enough that students show they understand evolution. They are told they must believe it.
You said, "Liberals, most of all, wish to secure the rights and dignity of everyone."
You mean everyone except business owners, Christian students, and people who believe in creation. What about gun owners? What about Christian landlords who don't want to rent to unmarried couples? Are you all for their rights too? I highly doubt it.

Carvin said...

If minors, especially at public schools, had actual rights we'd have something to discuss. They don't, so we don't.

If they said they were supporting it as 'educators', that would be fine. Educators are not public officials, though some are. DefCon was started by a public official, but not in that capacity. After all, you yourself had to look it up. I think it's safe to say it wasn't part of that capacity.

The objective of teaching shouldn't be just giving information but to encourage critical thinking. That rarely happens, but I'm not going to tell a teacher not to discuss these things.

If people can't be decent human beings on their own, the government should make them. This is basic stuff: treat people equally. You know 'All Men are Created Equal' and all that. Religion is not an excuse to abuse people.

Let's get real. Really real. This is the same thing as when pharmacists decide they won't supply Plan B contraceptive. Let's have story time. A friend of mine... her sister was raped by four men. The next day she had to go to four different pharmacies to find one with a pharmacist that didn't have a moral objection to giving her the contraceptive. You know, so she wouldn't risk having to have an abortion. Just try and think about your daughter going through that- the humiliation of being looked down upon by pharmacists after the greatest nightmare of her life. It is wholly wrong that those pharmacists have that 'right' to do that, no matter what their religion says.

So no, I don't people being forced to not be horrible to other people. I will not stand for sanctimonious pharmacists or bigoted fertility doctors any more than colored water fountains or allowing only men to vote. Can't work in a tattoo parlor, refuse to ink any tattoos and expect to still be hired because you're Jewish.

Boycotts are a kind of force and threat. It's just peaceful. At any rate, no political ramification happened. All that happened is they sold a ton of sandwiches to homophobes, which was really a political stunt by those who organized it (as in, not CFA). More to the point, most liberals and progressives do not approve of the idea of government intervention with CFA. We just wish people would recognize the evil that is done with their money.

All rights have stipulations. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't own weapons of mass destruction when you 'bare arms'. And you can't use religion to violate the law. A Mayan is not allowed to make human sacrifices to the sun god. It's still murder. You can't discriminate against people just because you interpret Christianity as being anti-gay... any more than you can because you interpret Christianity as being anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-African, anti-woman... all of which are real interpretations.

To put it concisely, your right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose. You can say gay people are going to Hell, but you can't treat them like second class citizens. I think fundamentalist creationism is madness, but if someone denied you service for as little as a pack of gum over it I would be the first to defend you.

Carvin said...

It should be noticed that Christians have not been asked to provide services against their religion; rather, they are forced to provide services for people they believe don't conform to their religion. The doctors weren't asked to do something for the lesbian couple they wouldn't normally do: they are in the business of artificial insemination, the service asked for. Someone against a.i. might not include it as part of their clinic for anyone, and I can respect that. The worst I can see is the pharmacist... though, as long as you still sell condoms I think it's pretty hypocritical to pick and choose. People have the right of privacy as to their medical needs. I'm happy to trust the doctor as being able to make the right decisions.

Are you saying you are okay with not caring about the unfairness? And like I said, it is economically unsound to have such a low minimum wage. Everyone, save a small minority at the top, is suffering for this oversight. But the people at the top run our economy since 1976-78 or so. Only the love of money can justify such gross waste and inequality.

I've never seen anything that said that students must believe it. Not understanding is merely ignorance of an important area of study in science. Believing in evolution isn't even an accurate statement. It's not a religion. But it is accurate enough that it's reasonable to work with it as if it is fact, unless you are testing to see if it is not. Technically heliocentric theory is still a theory, but we don't say 'I believe the earth orbits the sun', we just say that it does. That's how scientific theories work. They aren't just guesses, after all. You can believe that the sun orbits the earth, but if you don't understand heliocentric theory, you are going to have serious problems in astronomy.

I am for all those people's rights... I just don't think violating other people's rights is a right. Being ignorant of areas of science and then being expected to be recognized and knowledgeable is not a right, it's a demand. I shouldn't be put in an advanced trig class if I can't show basic trig skills just because I say basic trig is against my religion. Business owners do not have the right to discriminate because they hide their bigotry in their religious practice. Many white supremacists have said that God was the reason they would not allow blacks (or Jews, or Muslims or women... you get the idea) into their stores. They wanted to keep things 'traditional'. This isn't any different. Denying service to people you don't like isn't a right even if you claim you have to because of your religion.

Gun owners... this is a huge kettle I don't want to get into here. Needless to say, we have a huge gun problem in this country. While I like the idea of the removal of all guns everywhere- all weapons, in fact- this is about as realistic as ending abortion by making it illegal. I support heavy regulation. There is a reason why there are more guns than people in Switzerland but they have nearly no gun violence. Everyone who owns one knows how to use it, they are psych evaluated, tested every two or three years, sale of ammo is monitored... etc. Common sense if you ask me. But our gun laws are written by bought men- men bought by the gun manufacturers. But, I am digressing.

Anyway, I'm glad to protect the rights of the hypocritical landlord(almost assuredly, since the last survey I saw on the matter said that 95% of married Americans had sex before they were married), but housing discrimination is not right. It's just being an awful human being. And I don't see what being judgmental and mean, as well as breaking the law, has to do with Christianity.

Like I said, I am for rights. I think the problem is you feel discrimination is a right, and it is not. *sigh* This stuff- this is why I don't talk about being a Christian. Christians really give Christ a bad name.

RKBentley said...

You're not for individual rights. You're for "fairness." And if you believe something isn't fair, then you're for forcing people to be fair.

You're welcome to encourage fairness. The point you had raised, the point that inspired this post, is the claim that liberals don't force their beliefs on others. I believe we've seen that's completely false.

Carvin said...

By your concept of 'forcing views' on someone, anything could be that.

If I suggest there should be a penalty for beating your wife, killing your neighbor, raping a stranger, owning slaves... is this 'forcing my view' on someone else? If so, then yes, I am forcing my views on you. I'm sorry you feel stifled when I tell you that you can't murder indiscriminately.

You can't just muddle this together and think that settles this. You are confusing what 'forcing your views' means with 'making laws to protect the rights of others'.

Quite frankly, it's not like I can't clearly prove things aren't fair. Like minimum wage. We must recognize that employers hold power in the negotiation of pay; this is because they suffer less if they leave the table. The business can struggle through till they employ someone else. A person without a job starves. Due to this reason, employers can take advantage of this and hire workers below their true market value because workers fear joblessness. Likewise, people fear leaving their job when abused because they don't know how long they can live without having a job. This allows employers to continue to abuse people.

What isn't fair is when a business underpays their work force and the tax payers have to fill in the gap. Like Wal-Mart.

Even in the view of Christianity. Can you see our just God going 'good going, love how you are making that man work a three job, seventy hour week and not be able to support his whole family. Sure love seeing the kids suffer.' You want to talk about people not working not getting government benefits, fine. I can understand that. I think that is about being good, not about being fair, but I could see that it might be immoral to some. But not paying someone who works hard enough to support themselves? What should someone in that position do? Can you not see it from that person's view? Absolute basic empathy should lead you to go 'oh... that isn't right, that isn't fair'.

I know I'm going in circles but I just don't understand why you aren't getting what I'm saying.

RKBentley said...


You said, “You are confusing what 'forcing your views' means with 'making laws to protect the rights of others'.”

Liberals never understand the concept of protecting rights. Our rights need to be protected from a tyrannical government. I, for example, am not obligated to protect your right to free speech. I only publish your comments because I choose to do so. I could censor them if I wanted. If you want to make comments, you could go get your own blog. That's free speech. It's my right and your right. On the other hand, If the government told either of us we aren't allowed to post certain comments, or told either of us we had to include certain points of view, only then is our free speech being infringed.

The same is true for employers. Employers have rights and employees have rights. If you want to work for my company, you have to say nice things about it. If you want to say bad things about my company, then go work for someone else. You have the freedom of speech to make the comments, but I don't have to let you work for me if you make them.

Liberals want to use the government to force one group to be “fair” to the other group. In this case, taking away the property of the employer and giving it to the employee.

You said, “We must recognize that employers hold power in the negotiation of pay.”

You're wrong. I cannot remember the last time I worked for minimum wage. If my employer wanted to pay me ½ of what I'm currently making, I would work somewhere else. They might find someone else who would work for ½ the pay, but they won't find someone with my abilities and experience. Any competitor would hire me because I bring value to their company. So employers can't just pay their employees anything and expect to retain them.

Wages, then, are like prices. They're set by the market.

You said, “What isn't fair is when a business underpays their work force and the tax payers have to fill in the gap.”

Yes. It's not fair that tax payers have to subsidize people who have no skills.

You said, “Even in the view of Christianity. Can you see our just God going 'good going, love how you are making that man work a three job, seventy hour week and not be able to support his whole family. Sure love seeing the kids suffer.' You want to talk about people not working not getting government benefits, fine. I can understand that. I think that is about being good, not about being fair, but I could see that it might be immoral to some. But not paying someone who works hard enough to support themselves? What should someone in that position do? Can you not see it from that person's view? Absolute basic empathy should lead you to go 'oh... that isn't right, that isn't fair'.”

I've talked about this before. Charity is the job of the CHURCH. Remember that Jesus told the CHURCH to care for the poor. Some Christians want to turn over the job of the CHURCH to Caesar. They want the government to become a charity. That's lazy Christianity.

You said, “I know I'm going in circles but I just don't understand why you aren't getting what I'm saying.”

I get exactly what you're saying. You're saying it's a “good” thing to use the force of the government to take money away from one group and give it to another group to make everything “fair.” I disagree. I think it's very bad.

God bless!!


Carvin said...

I'll go point by point again.

And the first paragraph is right on the money. No arguments here.

The second is basically right, but businesses should not be considered people, and should not receive the same rights as people. But, since you limit things to speech, this is still true.

Now you stepped away from speech, and the things previously mentioned are moot.

The US Constitution gives the government to regulate commerce. It's one of the reasons it exists. To this extent, yes- it can create laws that penalize certain actions, limit how much of something is sold, what prices it can be sold at; it also creates laws that regulate the ways that employees and employers can interact- wages, hours a week, and so on. And all of these things benefit everyone in the long run. This isn't a 'greater good' situation, this is 'this is all good' situation, given time.

As for your situation. It's lovely that you went to a nice white person school in a suburb somewhere and got through college when it wasn't a lifelong debt. Not everyone has has the opportunities you have had. Shockingly, when you are brought up as poor and a minority in a poor school and can't afford other classes you can't get skills and have to work at minimum wage. And you call liberals elitist. You are describing a world where only a small portion of people can earn a decent wage, no matter how hard they try.

It is indeed unfair. So enact the solution of increasing the minimum wage.

If charity is the job of the church, the church is awful. Millions are suffering right now, and the church either can't handle it, or won't. The church could work together to try and enact governmental change, using our votes to affect lives in a positive manner.

I guess I'm not going to make any progress. You can't see the consequences of your views. I can only pray God gift you empathy. Maybe you'll start meeting a few people who didn't have the chances you have been given, see how hard they work, and how badly they suffer.

RKBentley said...


You said, “businesses should not be considered people, and should not receive the same rights as people.”

Businesses are owned by people. The vast majority of businesses that exist are not publicly traded companies that are owned by stockholders. Instead, they are owned by real people who do indeed have rights. My right to practice not religion should not be forfeited once I decide to open a business. If I owned a business and did not want to provide benefits to my gay employee's partner, why should the government force me? Let him work somewhere else that is owned by someone who doesn't have the same convictions.

You said, “Now you stepped away from speech, and the things previously mentioned are moot.”

They're not moot. Don't you understand the concept of analogy? My point is that it's the government that infringes upon our rights, not other individuals. I cannot violate the first amendment freedom of religion. I can practice my religion and the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of my religion. I guess that means unless I own a business, huh? If I own a business, then liberals don't care about my religious convictions.

You said, “And all of these things benefit everyone in the long run.”

That's another problem with liberals. They believe rights are intended to protect society. WRONG! Rights belong to individuals.

You said, “As for your situation. It's lovely that you went to a nice white person school in a suburb somewhere and got through college when it wasn't a lifelong debt.”

EXCUSE ME?! How do you even know if I'm white? FYI, there was forced busing when I was in school and I graduated from a school that was 30% black. I graduated college 19 years after graduating high school. I had a wife, 2 kids, and worked full time. I received ZERO state assistance for going to school. I paid my bills as I went. It was hard, but I did it. No one has to incur lifelong debt just to go to college.

You said, “You are describing a world where only a small portion of people can earn a decent wage, no matter how hard they try.”

According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income in the US in 2012 was $51,371. The real world is not the dismal picture you're trying to paint where skeletal workers are chained to desks or are dying in the street.

You said, “If charity is the job of the church, the church is awful.”

The Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the YMCA, most hospitals, most orphanages, most ivy league colleges, most soup kitchens, and most every other private organization that helps people was founded by Christians. But Jesus is the One Who commanded His people to feed the poor. He also said to give to Caesar the things are are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.

If you don't think employers are being fair, then you start a business and you pay your employees $20/hour to flip burgers. If you want to be a charity, then be a charity and give money to the poor. If you want to be a lazy Christian and let Caesar do the work God expects from the Church, then be a liberal.

Carvin said...

Yes, businesses are owned by people. Owning a business is one of many personal rights people have. The business is not a person. I myself own a business, but I am not the business, even though part of my name is part of its name. My business can not be an expression of my rights because it is not me. It is not right for me to violate other's rights through my business and claim it is expressing my right.

Besides, yes, the majority of businesses are owned privately, but they make up only a tiny portion of business as a whole. Publicly traded businesses are so huge they dwarf private business.

Clearly, your view from privilege has blinded you. If you'd ever been discriminated against you'd understand why people aren't allowed to discriminate. That is protecting the right of the individual. Or perhaps you can't empathize with homosexuals. Replace homosexual with Jew. Are you telling me that I should have the right to fire someone for being Jewish? I know, cheap blow, but I'm finding I can't express this stuff lightly anymore.

A business is not an individual, it's a business. It has the rights of a business- that is, the rights needed to facilitate commerce. It does not have religious freedom because it can not have a religion. Hobby Lobby does not have a religion, its owners do.

And why should the government force you to provide benefits? Well, one, because it fails to provide them itself. All the developed nations have universal healthcare and loads of benefits because they aren't as stuck in the past as we are. More to the point, though, the government should force your business to do the right thing because it assures the rights of employees. The government shouldn't be allowed to determine one marriage superior to another. If it is going to recognize some marriages it needs to recognize all. The only exception would be if it could violate someone's rights or be detrimental to society. Gay marriage is neither, so all marriages must be treated equally. Give it about 5-10 years and in that area at least we'll catch up with the modern world.

I understand analogies. You didn't make one. I'm not even sure what you'd have said with one, looking over your last post and this.

If our government is supposed to be like you describe, it clearly is a bad government. A government that can't ensure those who work hard get payed well? A government that makes people in debt or die of illness? A government that won't protect the minority and the marginalized? That is not a government worth defending. That is a government that is a brood of vipers. If that is America, then America hates all that God stands for.

Carvin said...

Anyway, back on topic. Liberals care about your religious freedom. But we aren't going to allow you to violate other's rights. We can, and have, created a government that can protect the rights of its citizens. Government has the responsibility to protect the rights, prosperity and liberty of all individuals. If it didn't, there would be no police, there would be no firefighters, there would be no military, there would be no social workers, there would be no road repair crews and forest rangers. If you wish to live in anarchy, then you are more than welcome to move down to Mexico. There are few laws there, and fewer to enforce them. There the rights of others are violated all the time. But the government rarely is the cause.

Like I said, white person school. Just because they bussed black children in doesn't change that. In fact, they bussed kids into your school because it was a white person school. And come on, it's painfully obvious that you are white. There aren't black libertarians. Only white people are naive enough to think such policies benefit anyone other than white people; more precisely, the well established whites. Which you probably aren't, but like I said, you are naive. This stuff you promote doesn't help you. It only helps the ultra-rich.

That said, you earn more because you are right. You were able to save up the money because you are white. You had an easier time getting into college.

Also, tuition rates have skyrocketed in the last couple decades. You barely earn more over your lifetime than what you spend on them. And because conservative policies have kept the economy weak, other than the stock market, there are few jobs of any sort. So now people with degrees have to flip burgers for minimum wage, trying to pay off their student loans while trying to start their life. It's nearly impossible.

Of course, in a developed nation, university education would be free. But, that's another place where we are behind.

That's raw income. median take home wages is 27,519.10 in 2012. The top 10,000 people make about as much in a year as the bottom 40,000,000. That's just the people who can find work. This country is a mess. It's run by crooked business men who are draining the country dry from the bottom up.

Founded does not mean they are still charity. Those that are still charitable pale in comparison to government efforts in scale and in efficiency. There is a reason why we pay more for healthcare in this country, it's because it's not run by the government.

And your Caesar argument might hold more weight if it wasn't for the fact that every president including the current has been Christian, that well over 90% of politicians at all levels are Christian and that the majority in this country is Christian. This isn't Rome. More to the point, you forget that the New Testament clearly instructs us to trust our governments and pay our taxes gladly. It also promoted the idea that Christians working together to form a community and that pools their resources is a good thing. You know, like a government could do.

No, it isn't lazy Christianity, it's responsibility of our Talents. We could squander them on small, ineffective charities, or we could work hard at developing a robust network of government well fare programs that will make the most of what we have to offer. I don't plan on burying my talents.

Lastly, the market doesn't work like that. You can't just make one company that does things right. It won't succeed against those who do things wrong. Laws must be changed so that everyone does what is right, and at that point competition will be fair while the right things are being done.

RKBentley said...


I suspect you're a troll. I've had strong minded liberals visit my blog but seldom are they are persistent and contrary as you. You must be deliberately trying to provoke strong reactions. I've played along so I guess you got me. How did I not see it earlier?

You've made a couple of statements like, “It is not right for me to violate other's rights through my business and claim it is expressing my right” and, “But we aren't going to allow you to violate other's rights.”

This is where I am completely lost on liberal logic. How is me not giving you money violating your rights? If it's my money then it's my rights that are being violated when the government forces me to give it to you. Employers are not chaining people to their desks and taking away their liberties. They're not taking away anyone's rights.

And finally, I am most certainly offended by your comments like, “Clearly, your view from privilege has blinded you.”

Do you think I'm privileged? You don't even know how much I make. Do you if I even own my own home? You know nothing about me expect those trifle few things that I've told you. Let me tell you a little bit more about myself:

I was the youngest of 4 kids. My dad was a blue collar worker and my mom stayed home. I'm 48 years old and stay at home moms was a lot more common back then. We lived in a 3 bedroom ranch in a middle class neighborhood that my parents bought for $16,000. It was the second house they ever owned and my mom lives there still. She has told me how much they worried about being able to afford it.

My dad had his first heart attack when I was 14 years old and couldn't work anymore. He died when I was a senior in high school. During my teen years, when I began dating, driving, and doing the things most teen boys do, I had to work for my spending money. I made $35/week cutting grass in the summer. During the school year, I skipped lunch every day and kept the 60 cents so I could buy McDonald's with my friends on the weekend.

As far as getting into college, my mom begged me to go to college as soon as I graduated high school. Because of our bleak finances, I qualified for a grant. However, being a young, stupid, 17 year old kid, I failed ½ of my classes and after only 2 semesters, I was on academic probation and the grants stopped.

After getting into the real world, I decided I wanted to go back to college but after having started a family, I simply didn't have the time or money. I and my wife lived paycheck to paycheck with our young daughter. I had no money saved up but I was able to find a small, Christian college that let me make payments on my tuition during the year. I had to have my bill paid by the end of each semester before I would receive my grades. I promise you that I worried till the very end, wondering if I was going to be able to participate in my graduation because I didn't know if I would be able to make the final payment in time.

Where is this “privilege” you claim I have? On what grounds did you say that? I've not had any advantage in my life; I've had to make my own way. Still, I know why you said that. It's because you're a blatant racist. You hate whitey and since I'm a conservative, you assume I'm a rich, white guy who hates the poor. You think I must have grown up with a silver spoon and never really met a poor person so how could I know how hard it is to not have anything. It's the typical, reaction of a racist to stereotype the people he hates. You've done it here.

Carvin, as long as your comments do not contain profanities, I will continue publishing them. However, as long as you continue to troll, I doubt I will continue responding. You are merely repeating the same, senseless arguments only now you are starting to rant. I cannot continue wasting my time.

God bless!!