The View From 1776

Science vs Religion?

In the popular picture, assiduously promoted by our socialist educational system, Christianity is a dark force of ignorance seeking to halt the advances of science.  The truth is that all of the greatest groundbreaking scientific work of the seminal period of modern physical science, the 17th and early 18th centuries, was done by devout Christians.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/28 at 06:52 PM
  1. One thing one can come away with after reading this piece is that Christians are liberals, liberal minded people. Christians who are truly compassionate are liberals. Some of these liberals have been called progressive conservatives.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/28  at  11:19 PM
  2. That is true David but they aren't socialists and many "liberals" are socialists with an agenda of wealth redistribution that "forces" giving that Christians felt should be a "personal choice." The founders also believe that social programs were to be at the state and local level because having them at the federal level gave the federal government too much power.

    When we say "liberals" we probably should say "progessives" since that is the term the socialist party uses to describe itself in its principles and strategy.

    While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce those changes which constitute socialism

    The Christian believes that "socialism" is a personal action and not one for government. Thus, we, if in the majority, establish education programs, soup kitchens, mental hospitals to help those who can't help themselves, clinics, etc. We do that through state and local government because that is the "government we control." The states were the controllers of the Federal government and due to the great differences of the societies in the states, gave very little power over people to the Federal government. Self-government starts at the local level with each level higher, weaker and less able to "force" the people to do things they didn't want.

    Thus, in some states we have counties that are dry (no alcohol sales) but the State itself isn't able to tell a county they can't sell alcohol. We had cites that banned adult enteratainment even though the state couldn't demand they do so. By the same token, states were able to pass laws the federal government was blocked from

    The problem with those we call mistakenly, "liberals" is that we are applying a label they give themselves when they promote more federal powers and more "big government." Christians in the beginnings of this nation promoted, in many cases, more government but not "big government" in that they kept the power at the local level and banned hundreds of behaviors that weren't at even the state level, let alone the federal level.

    Maybe if you get the "liberals" who promote federal power to quit calling themselves liberals and go by their real identity, advocates of socialism," we wouldn't mistakenly blame "liberals" for most of the problems we have with "big government."

    As Col. Crockett was so brilliantly reminded when running for re-election,
    "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

    What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

    If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/29  at  11:30 PM
  3. I take your point about forced wealth distribution. But this distribution does not only occur socially, as in taxing the well off in order to help the less well off. How about the wealth distribution that occurs when citizens are taxed for essentials like defense. That money has gone to create an industrial-military complex of huge corporations. That distribution has further feathered many already wealthy nests.

    I would rather live in the environment of, as you put it, "forced wealth distribution" like happens here than live in countries like in Latin America where such orderly distribution doesn't occur. In such countries there are unspeakable slums and poverty. Because of such disparities, there is less overall social security in those societies. Wealth distribution makes life more secure for all . Otherwise I am sure you would really have the barbarians at the gates, like in the races riots of the 60's.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/30  at  01:16 PM
  4. However, the wealth redistribution we have is driving the middle class jobs overseas. The wealth redistribution here is growing our debt due to entitlement spending which is even more than Defense. The wealth redistribution we have, drives investment money in to tax free securities.

    Regarding the poverty in other nations, much has to do with socialism and/or corrupt governments were the wealth is held by a few. Here 1 in every 125 people is a millionaire.
    he United States produced the most new millionaires but Hong Kong, at 30 percent, and India, at 22 percent showed the largest percentage gains. China, with a 12 percent jump in millionaires, was right behind the United States.
    As China uses capitalism to turn their nation around, about 50 million people a year are rising out of poverty to become "middle class" because they have stopped the "wealth redistribution" with taxes to zero in some economic zones for business and also on investment income. Thus, the poor are helped through industry, labor shortages raising wages, personal social security accounts, health savings accounts, new cities in more rural areas, new rail roads, 40 new nuclear power plants over the next 15 years.

    They, like Ireland are doing the opposite of the U.S. and their efforts to raise the wages and standards of living are working while we fail using socialism.

    The forced wealth redistribution we have means we become like those nations you don't want to live in so what have we gained with your plan? Nothing but more poverty while the poor nations become wealthy using capitalism and abandoning socialism and making people responsible for themselves.

    Look at the 90% home ownership in China. It was "forced" ownership and "forced" personal responsibility. The goverenment gave the people their homes that had been state owned and state maintained. But, they were then responsible for their home and it maintenance. They could keep it as it was, remodel it, or sell it and buy another home. That triggered much of the consumer spending we are seeing in China. It also triggered their housing boom as people sell their 100 sq. ft home and buy 1,000 square foot homes and even larger new subdivision homes in new subdivisions.

    And because they don't have wealth redistribution like we do which is actually paid for by the low wage worker the most, they have 4 to 5 times the buying power and an $8,000 a year worker lives like a $40,000 a year worker here.

    You may question my statement that low wage earners foot the bill for wealth redistribution but that is the truth. They are in the 50% tax bracket while John Kerry is in a much lower tax bracket. While his income tax was 12%, he did pay payroll taxes on his Senate salary and he does pay some sales tax.

    But, a low wage, pay check to pay check person pays 50% in taxes even with no "income tax." He pays all the taxes we levy on Business and much of what we levy on the "wealthy" because they pass the cost of their taxes on to consumers. As I stated in the example of the person who wants $50,000 after tax profit, he raises his price to include what his tax will be so he still nets $50,000 (gov. study on how much it takes to encourage a person to go into business for themselves). If you raise their tax, they raise their price or shut the business down if they can't and invest overseas or in tax free securities, etc. But, the consumer still foots the tax bill.

    A low wage, pay check to pay check worker pays about 35% in hidden taxes and comliance costs, 7.5% payroll and in most states 8% sales and/or other taxes (also include gas taxes). For some low wage earners who like their "beer" they pay 42% tax in each bottle they buy. If they buy some "Jim Beam" it is 70% tax. Gas taxes for some are very high if they have to drive a long distance to their job. 30 to 40 cents a gallon in many states for fed, state, and local taxes.

    The wealth redistribution system we have doesn't tax the wealthy, it taxes middle and low income workers because the top is set up to pass it on. The wealthy will never actually pay taxes because their "wealth" comes from our labor and their ideas and investment in the businesses we work in. The consumer pays all taxes, including those of the wealthy.

    Socialism is a false concept that you can actually pass the tax bill on to someone else. Many argue that it is more "fair" to ask the wealthy to pay more but since they pass it on, and they also pass the compliance cost on in the prices, how is that actually more "fair?" The nations that are rejecting socialism for capitalism are finding the truth out concerning taxes.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/30  at  02:30 PM
  5. quote:
    On Nov. 18, in a speech given at the Finance Ministry in Vienna, Austria, the very highly regarded European economist and first woman president of the Mont Pelerin Society, Professor Victoria Curzon Price, called for eliminating the corporate income tax.
    There, in the center of socialist Europe, was not only the call to get rid of this destructive tax, but almost everyone in an audience of economists, various government finance officials and public policy experts appeared to agree with her.
    The corporate income tax is a highly destructive tax that greatly distorts proper economic decision-making, taxes the same income more than once, is endlessly complex, and provides a declining share of tax revenue in most countries. For instance, in the United States, corporate income tax revenues fell from 4.2 percent of gross domestic product in 1967 to only 1.2 percent of GDP in 2003, though there was minimal change in the tax rate.
    Good economists have long known the corporate income tax causes more problems than it solves.
    ccording to a 2001 U.S. government report entitled "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," companies spent roughly $800 billion annually on federal compliance issues before Sarbanes-Oxley was even drafted.,1540,1846782,00.asp
    Since all the corporate income tax and the 800 billion are passed on to the consumer, only a fool would think the low wage worker isn't carrying most of the tax and compliance bill. Remember, our low wage earner has 1/4 the buying power and so a minumum wage earner here is equaled by a $1 an hour worker in China. GM pays about $2 an hour and even low end management is middle class now. An $18,000 a year engineer has $90,000 in buying power.

    Socialism doesn't work and can't work because it is too expensive and the worker has to foot the bill, not the wealthy. They move out of a nation if it gets to where they can't pass their taxes on.

    According to French government data, at least one millionaire on the average leaves France every day. It's not that they're finding other places more charming than their native terroir. No, it's that France punishes its wealthiest with burdensome tax rates that sometimes reach as high as 72%.

    France has actually filed complaints with the EU over Irelands low taxes and others don't like it either
    As one might expect, this astounding performance has attracted
    attention from Ireland's European neighbors. Surprisingly, though, this
    attention has been hostile. High-tax nations such as France are upset
    that Ireland has lowered tax rates. They argue that low tax rates are a
    form of "unfair" competition. In a truly Orwellian twist, European
    bureaucrats even assert that Ireland's low tax rates are a form
    of "state aid."

    The goals of "liberals" and I mean the "caring" ones, are wonderful goals. They want to eliminate poverty, disease, and oppression. What could be better to have as a goal. What I don't understand is why they insist on using a form of government that doesn't work to reach those goals but actually causes the problems to get worse. We are rapidly approaching the road France and Germany are on. How is that going to help you reach the goals you have.

    Socialism has never worked and never will unless it comes from the individual and not the government and certainly not a centrailized government. All socialism that is "successful" has to come from the person, churches and other charitable organizations, community government and in some cases the State. If the federal redistribution of funds is actually needed, it is the states that should decide how to create a "temporary" program such as during a storm like Katrina and then immediately return funding of problems back to each state for its own programs.

    Our nation was not founded to have the federal government involved in social and moral issues. It is unconstitutional but so is much of what the federal government does. And for each "federal" program, the workers, not the wealthy foot the bill and that is one of the main reasons socialism fails. It fails to realize "we the people" pay the bill no matter how it is set up and how we set it up costs us trillions in compliance costs so government can collect from us through business and the wealthy. We may not see "taxes" but we see lost buying power.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/30  at  02:34 PM
  6. Think of it this way, since manufacturing is the "low skill worker's" savior for wages.

    When we started the "LBJ" Great Society where we would attack poverty, oppression and health concerns, Manufacturing was 30.4% of GDP. After forty years of democratically controlled Congress, 5 trillion on the war on poverty spent, we had about the same level of poverty, but manufacturing's share of GDP had dropped over 50%. Those jobs left evey year of the "progressive" agenda democrats promoted to solve our problems.

    Education standards declined each decade, standards of living and buying power declined each decade. Prison population rates soared from 200 per 100,000 in 1970 to 1,200 in the 90's. Even after the Republicans gained the majority in Congress because people were fed up with Democrat progressive agendas, the democrats have used the filibuster and other tactics to block drilling in ANWR, tax cuts on the Corporate Income, tax cuts on the wealthy that would help workers pay less in passed though taxes (due to compliance costs as well as the tax itself, remember 400 to 700% compliance costs for many mid size businesss above the tax they pay that is in prices), and the loss of jobs because those prices don't let our businesses compete in the world market.

    Wonderful goals, lousy plan that costs workers their buying power. Even now, with all the nations in reform using lower taxes to raise tax revenues to pay for their own social prgrams, the socialists in control of the democratic party demand we keep "wealth redistribution."

    If you ask the Socialist party about this, they reply the only reason they fail is because not enough nations are on board. They believe this nation is large enough, however, that with France and Germany and other socialist nations they can make it succeed. Yet, even as they say this, ex-socialist nations are rising rapidly and we are sinking as is France, Germany and the other nations. It won't work no matter how many nations they get or how big the nations are they get.

    Competition from low tax, capitalist nations will destroy them
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/30  at  02:45 PM
  7. Onward Christian soldiers going off to science.......
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/06  at  05:04 PM
  8. Doesn't have much to do with "Christianity" just common sense. History is where we get our common sense from. Somebody tries something new and it either works or doesn't work. If it doesn't work they try to improve it, if it still doesn't work they try again, and again, and again, but at some point somebody has to say, "It doesn't work." Your intentions may be good, but find a new way to reach the goals. Find a way that works. If even socialist nations say it doesn't work, socialism must not be the solution.

    The Unions did nothing we the people couldn't have done. Instead of the "unions," the workers could have convinced "we the people" to legislate the changes needed instead of using criminals and criminal acts to force those decisions be made.

    It wasn't the goals, again, that were bad. It was the use of unconstitutional means to do it that were bad. It wasn't the creation of a "union" that was bad it was the creation of a "union" that used criminal acts. "The ends justify the means" was their cry. Crime is OK as long as the results are good. Well, now that they are out of jobs for many, (union memberships dropped from 33% to 13% and much of that is the rise in government employment of government union workers). "They cut their nose off to spite their face."

    That is the socialist way. Have goals of utopia and then send the nation into decline trying to reach those goals.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  09/06  at  05:20 PM
  9. using false and inaccurate definitions of human nature and sloppy criteria of decision and priority. Cheap words.

    'Liberal' and 'progressive' mind-sets are not accurate terms when they describe past thought snd historical behavior that is neither progressive or generous - or 'social.'

    Regressive political motivations are abusive of truthful meaning, making possible 'success' in an election - again and again. Consevatives seek to conserve the best of the past and eradicate the worst of any present at the individual level. Liberals attempt to manipulate cause-effect without any relation to truth, principle, or consequences.

    vincit veritas
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  04/18  at  08:11 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.