The American Dream

[fewwillfindit]

Today, I heard a political commentator say that Martin Luther King Jr's vision of the American dream was, "the same opportunity for all," and contrasted that with the modern progressive vision of, "the same outcome for all."

Questions for debate:

1. Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?
2. Which is best for America?
3. Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?

[East of Eden]

The Bible and Jesus were very much for giving to the poor and I find it remarkably hard to believe that were Jesus real he would favor a system that denied the poor as much care as the society could afford to give them. Had I posted longer versions of each of those passages, I also would have noted they were not afraid to invoke divine wrath and eternal torment upon those who did not provide to the poor, and it doesn't get much more coersive than that.

This explains why religious Americans give more to charity than non-religious ones. These instructions from Jesus were given to free people, not to governing bodies. Jesus didn't say, "Be faithful in your payment of taxes to Caesar to that Caesar can care for the sick." He always addressed the people, because it was the responsibility of individuals to act out of care and concern for others, not the responsibility of an impersonal government body. We will be judged individually.

If liberals were really concerned about the poor, instead of throwing money we don't have at the problem they'd address the breakdown of the family. William Galston, once an assistant to President Clinton, said, "To avoid poverty, do three things: finish high school, marry before having a child, and produce the child after you are 20 years old. Only 8% of people who do all three will be poor; of those who fail to do them, 79% will be poor."

When two scholars studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, they found that, after holding income constant, young people in fatherless families were twice as likely to be in jail as were those in two-parent families. And their lives did not imporve if their mother had acquired a stepfather. Fill-in dads do not improve things any more than do bigger government checks.

Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.�

In other words those who do not unload their worldly possessions do not get into heaven.

Mat 19:27 immediately following this says, ""With man this impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." Abraham and Solomon were the Bill Gates of their day, and the NT speaks of wealthy Christians aiding the Apostles.

I've also heard an interpretation that talks about a small ancient gate called the 'eye of the needle', that was meant for protection and was large enough for a man to bend over and pass, but not large enough for a man on horseback. In other words, it would have been possible, but difficult, for a camel to go through such a gate.

Mat 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

Again, give to the poor or go to hell. Do you notice a pattern forming here?

Salvation isn't earned by works, but a truly saved person will demonstrate his salvation by choosing to follow Christ's teachings. Which again, is probably why Christians give more to charity.

[nygreenguy]

Salvation isn't earned by works, but a truly saved person will demonstrate his salvation by choosing to follow Christ's teachings. Which again, is probably why Christians give more to charity.

In the same survey that was posted elsewhere, it showed that if you remove giving to churches (or other religious organizations) liberals actually gave slightly more.

[East of Eden]

Salvation isn't earned by works, but a truly saved person will demonstrate his salvation by choosing to follow Christ's teachings. Which again, is probably why Christians give more to charity.

In the same survey that was posted elsewhere, it showed that if you remove giving to churches (or other religious organizations) liberals actually gave slightly more.

Not true, Arthur Brooks found the religious give more to secular charities than non-religious. And if you took away giving to PBS and other liberal pet causes, then what? That's only fair if you want to discount church giving.

The religious also donate more blood.

[dianaiad]

Salvation isn't earned by works, but a truly saved person will demonstrate his salvation by choosing to follow Christ's teachings. Which again, is probably why Christians give more to charity.

In the same survey that was posted elsewhere, it showed that if you remove giving to churches (or other religious organizations) liberals actually gave slightly more.

Not true, Arthur Brooks found the religious give more to secular charities than non-religious. And if you took away giving to PBS and other liberal pet causes, then what? That's only fair if you want to discount church giving.

The religious also donate more blood.

You are quite right: giving is giving. Individual charitable giving means that the individual gets to choose where his money goes--and if atheists can decide that giving to churches is NOT to be counted, then theists can decide that anything donated to causes they don't like may also be discounted. American Atheists, for instance, or Planned Parenthood--or indeed any organization that supports stuff that an individual theist thinks might be sinful.

Fair, as you mentioned, is fair.

[nygreenguy]

Salvation isn't earned by works, but a truly saved person will demonstrate his salvation by choosing to follow Christ's teachings. Which again, is probably why Christians give more to charity.

In the same survey that was posted elsewhere, it showed that if you remove giving to churches (or other religious organizations) liberals actually gave slightly more.

Not true, Arthur Brooks found the religious give more to secular charities than non-religious. And if you took away giving to PBS and other liberal pet causes, then what? That's only fair if you want to discount church giving.

The religious also donate more blood.

not according to the survey that was posted elsewhere. I discount church giving because most churches do little to no work in the community. Much of the money goes to the building itself and the staff.

[dianaiad]

Salvation isn't earned by works, but a truly saved person will demonstrate his salvation by choosing to follow Christ's teachings. Which again, is probably why Christians give more to charity.

In the same survey that was posted elsewhere, it showed that if you remove giving to churches (or other religious organizations) liberals actually gave slightly more.

Not true, Arthur Brooks found the religious give more to secular charities than non-religious. And if you took away giving to PBS and other liberal pet causes, then what? That's only fair if you want to discount church giving.

The religious also donate more blood.

not according to the survey that was posted elsewhere. I discount church giving because most churches do little to no work in the community. Much of the money goes to the building itself and the staff.

Indeed? "MOST churches do little to no work in the community?" Care to provide the studies that tell us that churches don't do charitable work, or help the needy? I think that, for instance, the International Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Mormons, Catholic Charities, a whole host of Baptists--not to mention Jewish congregations, Muslim congregations and a BUNCH of Protestant churches who (as a rule) actually have people whose entire ministry is about charitable work in the community, might take issue with that.

You made the claim. Care to back it up?

[nygreenguy]

I think that, for instance, the International Red Cross,

Secular

the Salvation Army,

Only if you are a believer

the Mormons,

ibid

Catholic Charities,

ibid

You made the claim. Care to back it up?

Better yet, Ill retract my claim. Now, you say they are charitable, prove it?

[dianaiad]

I think that, for instance, the International Red Cross,

Secular

the Salvation Army,

Only if you are a believer

the Mormons,

ibid

Catholic Charities,

ibid

That is going to come as quite a surprise to those folks who recieve such aid. BTW, while the aims of the International Red Cross were to aid all soldiers, whatever their nationality or faith, the logo is (wait for this) a red CROSS. It was adopted because it was easily identifiable, associated as it was the the predominant religion and the aims of that religion.

This was further confirmed by the later adoption of the Red Crescent by the Muslim nations who joined the International Red Cross--who substituted the symbol of THEIR basic religion, the crescent, as it's logo.

this makes the Red Cross, though it isn't tied to a specific religion, most definitely tied to theism--and a specific brand of it, at that. Indeed, as its history continued, other logos were adopted by those who recognized and understood the red cross for what it symbolized, and insisted upon different logos to better represent who they were.

As to your next claim that the specific churches I referenced only help their own members, again, your claim, your responsibility to prove it.

.........and good luck with that.

[

You made the claim. Care to back it up?

Better yet, Ill retract my claim. Now, you say they are charitable, prove it?

Sorry, no dice. it's still your claim, and your job.

[micatala]

I think that, for instance, the International Red Cross,

Secular

the Salvation Army,

Only if you are a believer

the Mormons,

ibid

Catholic Charities,

ibid

That is going to come as quite a surprise to those folks who recieve such aid. BTW, while the aims of the International Red Cross were to aid all soldiers, whatever their nationality or faith, the logo is (wait for this) a red CROSS. It was adopted because it was easily identifiable, associated as it was the the predominant religion and the aims of that religion.

This was further confirmed by the later adoption of the Red Crescent by the Muslim nations who joined the International Red Cross--who substituted the symbol of THEIR basic religion, the crescent, as it's logo.

this makes the Red Cross, though it isn't tied to a specific religion, most definitely tied to theism--and a specific brand of it, at that. Indeed, as its history continued, other logos were adopted by those who recognized and understood the red cross for what it symbolized, and insisted upon different logos to better represent who they were.

As to your next claim that the specific churches I referenced only help their own members, again, your claim, your responsibility to prove it.

.........and good luck with that.

[

You made the claim. Care to back it up?

Better yet, Ill retract my claim. Now, you say they are charitable, prove it?

Sorry, no dice. it's still your claim, and your job.

Moderator Clarification


If a member withdraws a claim, he or she is no longer under any obligation to prove or even provide supporting evidence.


This does not absolve anyone else from supporting their claims, unless of course, they also wish to withdraw their claims.


Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Choir Loft]

Today, I heard a political commentator say that Martin Luther King Jr's vision of the American dream was, "the same opportunity for all," and contrasted that with the modern progressive vision of, "the same outcome for all."

Questions for debate:

1. Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?
2. Which is best for America?
3. Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?

1. It's a representation, but little more than a half-forgotten dream, a fantasy.
2. Wake up and smell the coffee. Either way it isn't gonna happen folks.
3. The Bible promotes allegiance to God and fair treatment for all men BETWEEN MEN. That means it starts with individuals. There is little or no Biblical endorsement of government policy in this regard. If there is, I'd like to see it chapter and verse.

Martin Luther King also said this:
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

He also said....
"Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as His divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems that I can hear God saying to America,
'You are too arrogant. If you don't change your ways I will rise up and break the back bone of your power.'"

* * *
"Curiously, Americans still believe that sending their sons and daughters to fight, die and become maimed in Washington’s wars is somehow 'serving our country and keeping us free.' The level of deception about America’s military is mind-boggling, and can be directly traced back to the churches of America.

Americans must stop and observe the FACTS. Fact is, war is just another business that maintains manufacturing jobs in America, one of the few remaining sectors of manufacturing that has not left America’s borders. It is the source of bottomless corruption, government waste and campaign contributions.

Washington will NEVER stop fomenting war until it runs out of money. So, do you want to live in a place that practices peace? It will never again happen here in the USA. If you want a nation that does not attack others, send its military outside its borders and waste billions of dollars in useless armaments and new weapons, where will you go?

You will stop supporting America and work for secession in the state where you want to live."
- Russell Longcore