| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"anthony baldwin" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2003 09:48:17 AM |
| Object: |
army visit to school |
This past Monday the Army 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, NC
came to my school.
Students had written letters to these soldiers while they were in the
Middle East, part of Operation Tribute to Freedom.
I am not ant-military, I should clarify before moving on, and I treated
these soldiers with all due respect. Also, I had students in my own
classrooms (I was in a different school last year) write to servicemen
and women in the Middle East (although I also told the students that
they could merely tell the soldiers that we were praying for their safe
return--I had students whose parents protested the war right along side me.)
But I have a couple of problems:
First of all, I never saw Iraq as a threat to my freedom.
So, soldiers in Iraq are not defending my freedom; They're defending
Cheney's Haliburton's freedom to pick up reconstruction contracts paid
for with our tax money. They fought for rich oil industry republicans'
rights to exploit foreign oil...(Not that deposing Saddam Hussein was a
bad idea, mind you). I feel that calling present military activities in
the Middle East anything at all to do with my Freedom is particularly
dishonest. This is what I call "propaganda".
The biggest problem I have with our little visit, however, had to do
with a little multimedia presentation that our soldier friends showed
us. The images were all fine. I don't begrudge them their pride in their
outfit and the successes they've had. They've worked hard and followed
orders and done their job (even if I don't agree with those giving the
orders). That's all well and good.
The problem was the music that went along with it. They blared some
country/rock song in our auditorium that went something like this:
"Don't mess with the US; There'll be Hell to pay. We'll put a bullet in
your *****; It's the American Way!"
Well, first of all, if students use such language, they get detention,
so one could argue that the language is inappropriate. Of course, I'm
not much of one for censorship.
The problem is that here I am trying to teach these children to resolve
conflicts among themselves in a peaceful fashion, to seek out adults for
assistance and mediation, etc., etc. and here comes the US Army to teach
them that the American Way is to simply solve your problems with violence.
This is a middle school. We wonder why our students shoot each other.
We're teaching impressionable, hormonally challenged, emotional
pre-teens that the American Way is to just shoot now and ask questions
later...Good idea...
Students had plenty to say about the song after the presentation, too.
They loved it.
I have seen an increase in violent behavior over the week since this
visit, too. A marked increase, mind you. Certain students, ones who had
commented on the video in particular, have taken it upon themselves to
be more disruptive and violent than previously. They feel justified now.
It's the American Way. They have attacked other students verbally and
physically.
Personally, I don't want the American Way to be a violent one. I'm
absolutely disgusted with that notion. I think we should be mature
enough to solve our problems without being violent. I think that we
should use our power and resources to be compassionate and helpful in
the world. I believe that many millions of Americans agree with me.
Isn't that what New Yorkers and Americans all over proved on Semptember
11, 2001, when we all rose to help our countrymen who were injured and
hurt, when we gave blood and money and the sweat off our backs to help
each other?
I would like to believe that the American Way is about Freedom, Justice,
Community, Kindness, Compassion, Responsiblity, Generosity, Equality.
But not violence!
I was particularly disappointed that it was the son of Rev. Wade Hyslop
(CT State Deputy Speaker of the House, a local preacher and all told an
outstanding leader in our community) that showed this presentation, too.
He (The Sergeant Major, not Rev. Hyslop) has been in the Army for 20
years. Rev. Hyslop was there, too, and was able to present his son with
some service award (I apologize that I do not recall what it was). He is
justifiably proud that his son has a long and decorated career in the
Army, for sure, but might he not be embarrassed about this presentation?
Personally, I was disgusted by it.
.
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
28 Nov 2003 11:59:00 AM |
|
|
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:57Kxb.31852$m14.18176@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
This past Monday the Army 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, NC
came to my school.
Students had written letters to these soldiers while they were in the
Middle East, part of Operation Tribute to Freedom.
I am not ant-military, I should clarify before moving on, and I treated
these soldiers with all due respect. Also, I had students in my own
classrooms (I was in a different school last year) write to servicemen
and women in the Middle East (although I also told the students that
they could merely tell the soldiers that we were praying for their safe
return--I had students whose parents protested the war right along side
me.)
But I have a couple of problems:
One of which is you are comin off as a whiner. Your rant above is really
sounding like a whine from a three year old.
First of all, I never saw Iraq as a threat to my freedom.
Well no one said common sense and intelligence is needed to be a leftist, so
it is no wonder you had that impression.
So, soldiers in Iraq are not defending my freedom;
Just because you are blinded by your leftist ideology, does not mean those
soldiers were not defending your freedom. As it is our military protects all
of us, even if we dissagree with the political leadership.
They're defending
Cheney's Haliburton's freedom to pick up reconstruction contracts paid
for with our tax money. They fought for rich oil industry republicans'
rights to exploit foreign oil...(Not that deposing Saddam Hussein was a
bad idea, mind you). I feel that calling present military activities in
the Middle East anything at all to do with my Freedom is particularly
dishonest. This is what I call "propaganda".
And your emotional allegation is all that this is. An emotional allegation
with no facts to back it up.
The biggest problem I have with our little visit, however, had to do
with a little multimedia presentation that our soldier friends showed
us. The images were all fine. I don't begrudge them their pride in their
outfit and the successes they've had. They've worked hard and followed
orders and done their job (even if I don't agree with those giving the
orders). That's all well and good.
The problem was the music that went along with it. They blared some
country/rock song in our auditorium that went something like this:
Oh, so you dislike country and rock music and instead wanted to hear some
rap music.
Well too bad whiner.
"Don't mess with the US; There'll be Hell to pay. We'll put a bullet in
your *****; It's the American Way!"
Well, first of all, if students use such language, they get detention,
Sure, meanwhile you teachers are allowing homosexuals to come to school to
discuss homosexual sex acts with the kids, you give the kids condoms, and
tell them they do not have to listen and abide by the religious morals of
their parents.
so one could argue that the language is inappropriate. Of course, I'm
not much of one for censorship.
Sounds like you like to censor views you do not agree with.
The problem is that here I am trying to teach these children to resolve
conflicts among themselves in a peaceful fashion, to seek out adults for
assistance and mediation, etc., etc. and here comes the US Army to teach
them that the American Way is to simply solve your problems with violence.
You people always amaze me. Here you are teaching the secular humanism
belief to our captive public school children, forcing your beliefs on the
children while excluding all mention of beliefs you dislike. You preach to
our kids that morals are not absolute, and that the kids should make up
their own morals and not listen to their parents. Now you have the audacity
to say that the only way you can resolve issues is in peaceful ways, you are
nuts. First off you are preaching and teaching intolerance of christians and
other people you dislike is ok, and you wonder why people have to resort to
force.
As a teacher why can't you be honest with your students and tell them point
blank, that in our present state mankind is not a peaceful compassionate
species. Oh how I wish we were a peaceful species, but because of feelings
of Greed, Jealously, and other short comings mankind will always have to
resort to violence to protect him/herself.
We still have racism, intolerance (just look at the lefts intolerance of
anything christian), class warfare, etc. Until Mankind sheds these emotions
or is able to control them the use of force will always be needed at some
time. If you do not use force, well you will be attacked and overwhelemed by
those who would use force. So the answer is quite clear, while most of us
may hate to use force, and we would rather use peaceful means, there comes a
point where the peaceful means have failed and it is time to use force. What
makes us and other Western nations better than some other countries is that
we tend to use force only as a last resort, and we only use enough force to
get the job done.
This is a middle school. We wonder why our students shoot each other.
We're teaching impressionable, hormonally challenged, emotional
pre-teens that the American Way is to just shoot now and ask questions
later...Good idea...
The reason why the kids are shooting each other has nothing to do with the
American military, and all to do with the secular humanism you and your ilk
are forcing down there throats. You are preaching to these kids that morals
are not absolutes, and they should make up their own morals, so what did you
expect to happen, when you pretty much have told the students if it feels
good to just do it, and do not worry about the consequences, as we (the left
in American) will not hold you responsible for your actions.
Students had plenty to say about the song after the presentation, too.
They loved it.
I have seen an increase in violent behavior over the week since this
visit, too.
Hogwash, if rap music, movies on TV, and the big screen, MTV, and a whole
list of other entertainment avenues that are out there, are not inciting
violence, than neither did a visit by the Army.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school of Dana's Fetishes |
28 Nov 2003 11:58:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:59:00 -0900, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
One of which is you are comin off as a whiner. Your rant above is really
sounding like a whine from a three year old.
What about your sick, disgusting sex ads, BUTTMASTER?
=====================================================
From: ()
Subject: golden/brown showers
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersports
Date: 1997/03/30
swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
showers. will worship feet and *****. trampling and smothering ok
also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Its A Secret NoSpam4@MePlease" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
28 Nov 2003 12:38:32 PM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:57Kxb.31852$m14.18176@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
This past Monday the Army 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, NC
came to my school.
Students had written letters to these soldiers while they were in the
Middle East, part of Operation Tribute to Freedom.
I am not ant-military, I should clarify before moving on, and I treated
these soldiers with all due respect. Also, I had students in my own
classrooms (I was in a different school last year) write to servicemen
and women in the Middle East (although I also told the students that
they could merely tell the soldiers that we were praying for their safe
return--
Excuse me you had them do what?
I hope you're not a public school teacher otherwise we need to report
you for that violation of church of state and have you fired from your job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
28 Nov 2003 12:46:59 PM |
|
|
It's A Secret wrote:
dpr wrote:
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:57Kxb.31852$m14.18176@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
This past Monday the Army 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, NC
came to my school.
Students had written letters to these soldiers while they were in the
Middle East, part of Operation Tribute to Freedom.
I am not ant-military, I should clarify before moving on, and I treated
these soldiers with all due respect. Also, I had students in my own
classrooms (I was in a different school last year) write to servicemen
and women in the Middle East (although I also told the students that
they could merely tell the soldiers that we were praying for their safe
return--
Excuse me you had them do what?
I hope you're not a public school teacher otherwise we need to report
you for that violation of church of state and have you fired from your job.
I am a public school teacher.
I mentioned it as an option; I did not tell them that they MUST pray.
That would be a violation of their rights.
Also, for those who chose to pray, I did't tell them whom to pray to.
I have no problem with students praying in schools.
As I see it, prayer is a necessity in my job.
I would oppose, however, government sanction of specific prayers or
religious practices.
It is clear that you and others are assuming things about me that are
untrue. Just because I believe in compassion and peace doesn't mean
that I am a godless communist who persecutes religion.
In fact, I am a Quaker and a socialist, not a communist, not that I
would expect you to understand the distinction. (Early Christians lived
in socialist communes. Read the book of Acts.)
tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
28 Nov 2003 03:45:10 PM |
|
|
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:DKMxb.1272$bB3.763@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
It's A Secret wrote:
dpr wrote:
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:57Kxb.31852$m14.18176@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
This past Monday the Army 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, NC
came to my school.
Students had written letters to these soldiers while they were in the
Middle East, part of Operation Tribute to Freedom.
I am not ant-military, I should clarify before moving on, and I
treated
these soldiers with all due respect. Also, I had students in my own
classrooms (I was in a different school last year) write to servicemen
and women in the Middle East (although I also told the students that
they could merely tell the soldiers that we were praying for their
safe
return--
Excuse me you had them do what?
I hope you're not a public school teacher otherwise we need to report
you for that violation of church of state and have you fired from your
job.
I am a public school teacher.
I mentioned it as an option; I did not tell them that they MUST pray.
That would be a violation of their rights.
Also, for those who chose to pray, I did't tell them whom to pray to.
I have no problem with students praying in schools.
As I see it, prayer is a necessity in my job.
I would oppose, however, government sanction of specific prayers or
religious practices.
It is clear that you and others are assuming things about me that are
untrue. Just because I believe in compassion and peace doesn't mean
that I am a godless communist who persecutes religion.
It would appear that you are not a compassionate person, and nor are you a
peaceful person, as you claim to be a socialist, and socialism is not noted
for it's compassion or peace.
In fact, I am a Quaker and a socialist, not a communist, not that I
would expect you to understand the distinction. (Early Christians lived
in socialist communes. Read the book of Acts.)
Early Christians did not live in socialist communes. And socialism with it's
disregard of the individual and it's worship of the state is at odds with
Christian belief in general.
tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 12:34:30 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
Early Christians did not live in socialist communes. And socialism with it's
disregard of the individual and it's worship of the state is at odds with
Christian belief in general.
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Merriam-Webster:
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state
socialism of type b might fit your description, but socialism of type
a could exist with any form of government/state or none.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 01:17:45 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
Early Christians did not live in socialist communes. And socialism with
it's
disregard of the individual and it's worship of the state is at odds
with
Christian belief in general.
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Socialism has everything to do with the state
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 10:51:02 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Socialism has everything to do with the state
I consider the dictionary to be a better source than a dimwit like
you.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 11:40:57 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:pijhsvg649h83hurtupqkouumb28jtuusa@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Socialism has everything to do with the state
I consider
--
"Nietzsche said that G-D is dead, but G-d says that Nietzsche is dead!"
-Anonymous
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
You are lost in your own little world. Show us where socialism is not state
control. You know you cannot do that. Which is why you run away all the
time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 06:21:28 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:pijhsvg649h83hurtupqkouumb28jtuusa@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
You are lost in your own little world. Show us where socialism is not state
control.
I did. I quoted the dictionary.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:31:34 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:3tdisvkioprcbmadoirfbhjchtog0g3tbn@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:pijhsvg649h83hurtupqkouumb28jtuusa@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of
which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
You are lost in your own little world. Show us where socialism is not
state
control.
I did.
You as usual did no such thing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:11:47 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:pijhsvg649h83hurtupqkouumb28jtuusa@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
You are lost in your own little world. Show us where socialism is not state
control.
I did. I quoted the dictionary.
lojbab
Isn't that just the most annoying thing.
One may post all kinds of evidence that contradicts DPR's dribble,
but he ignores it and proceeds with his childish attacks.
tony b
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:33:19 AM |
|
|
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:TKgyb.32478$ke2.28400@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:pijhsvg649h83hurtupqkouumb28jtuusa@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
You are lost in your own little world. Show us where socialism is not
state
control.
I did. I quoted the dictionary.
lojbab
Isn't that just the most annoying thing.
One may post all kinds of evidence that contradicts DPR's dribble,
but he ignores it and proceeds with his childish attacks.
You nor bob have posted any evidence yet, all you two have posted were your
misguided opinions.
Now since bob cannot do it, why don't you show us how socialism is not state
control.
tony b
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 06:34:22 AM |
|
|
anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
:|
:|Isn't that just the most annoying thing.
:|One may post all kinds of evidence that contradicts DPR's dribble,
:|but he ignores it and proceeds with his childish attacks.
:|
:|tony b
Welcome to the internet, and especially these newsgroups and the topic
frequently "discussed" there, church state separation and all the subtopics
associated with it, directly or indirectly (and some of them are pretty
indirectly connected too)
The most recent edition of usual trolls here do what you mention on a very
regular basis.
The DPRs (Dana), Strickland, Idontreply, kands00. AmbroseSearle AKA Rich
Gardiner, CB, Bickaroo Bonzau, Joseph M Irvin, "Founding Father,"
malcolmkirkpatrick, "Carlyle Groupie," "Martin McPhillips," David Lentz of
these newsgrouops, with varying degrees of intelligence all seem to be
graduates of the same school, i.e. the school of ignore all evidence and
facts to the contrary and continue to say the same lies over and over and
over again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:30:41 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:spnjsvcbggpoq8bb423o408vlh3gcprqoh@4ax.com...
anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
:|
:|Isn't that just the most annoying thing.
:|One may post all kinds of evidence that contradicts DPR's dribble,
:|but he ignores it and proceeds with his childish attacks.
:|
:|tony b
Welcome to the internet, and especially these newsgroups and the topic
frequently "discussed" there, church state separation and all the
subtopics
associated with it, directly or indirectly (and some of them are pretty
indirectly connected too)
The most recent edition of usual trolls here do what you mention on a
very
regular basis.
What a loser this guy buckeye is, not only does he post articles that twist
the meaning of the Constitution, he can never defend those articles. All he
does is run away when his posts are refuted with facts. The only people he
does not call trolls is someone that agrees with him, or the articles he
posts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 08:05:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
:|
:|Isn't that just the most annoying thing.
:|One may post all kinds of evidence that contradicts DPR's dribble,
:|but he ignores it and proceeds with his childish attacks.
:|
:|tony b
Welcome to the internet, and especially these newsgroups and the topic
frequently "discussed" there, church state separation and all the subtopics
associated with it, directly or indirectly (and some of them are pretty
indirectly connected too)
The most recent edition of usual trolls here do what you mention on a very
regular basis.
The DPRs (Dana), Strickland, Idontreply, kands00. AmbroseSearle AKA Rich
Gardiner, CB, Bickaroo Bonzau, Joseph M Irvin, "Founding Father,"
malcolmkirkpatrick, "Carlyle Groupie," "Martin McPhillips," David Lentz of
these newsgrouops, with varying degrees of intelligence all seem to be
graduates of the same school, i.e. the school of ignore all evidence and
facts to the contrary and continue to say the same lies over and over and
over again.
What fun!
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:36:59 PM |
|
|
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:YOmyb.32482$vf5.25191@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
What fun!
Are you going to be like Bob, and Buckeye and make a claim like where you
stated Christianity is a socialist belief, and then run away and not back up
this asinine claim with some facts. Buckeye and
Bob have also made the same claim, yet they were never able to provide any
facts to prove it was true. Now I guess it is your turn.
Lets see if you run away like Bob and Buckeye have done.
http://www.faithandthought.com/marx.htm
The Bible and Socialism
The goal of socialism is the equal distribution of wealth. "From each
according to his ability to each according to his need" is one socialist
motto. Of course, for this to be achieved, wealth must be redistributed,
which implies that there is really no such thing as personal property
rights. What you have is not really yours; it belongs to the state and
therefore can be taken from you to give to others.
I have often heard Christians say that in an ideal world socialism would be
the optimum arrangement. No doubt this belief is the result of the impulse
to see the needy receive help, and it is prompted by biblical teaching about
the importance of sharing (see James 2:15-17; Ephesians 4:28; 1 John 3:17).
But does the Bible really endorse socialism as the means to achieve these
worthwhile objectives? I would like to show that the Bible explicitly
endorses personal property rights, and implicitly rejects economic
egalitarianism.
The Bible and Personal Property
Without question the most fundamental tenet of socialism is the rejection of
personal property rights. "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence: Abolition of private property" (Karl Marx, The
Communist Manifesto, p. 96 [Penguin Classics edition]). Socialism instead
argues for state control of the means of production.
The Bible explicitly rejects this belief. The simplest way to illustrate
this is with the Ten Commandments. "You shall not covet your neighbor's
house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife of his male servant or his
female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your
neighbor" (Exodus 20:17). Not only was outright theft prohibited (Exodus
20:15), merely coveting the property of someone else was proscribed. The
tenth command explicitly endorses the concept of personal property rights.
Of course this right was not absolute, particularly with regard to the land
God gave the Israelites. Israel knew that the land ultimately belonged to
the Lord, and that indeed "the earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains"
(Psalm 24:1). God placed strict laws in place about what Israel could do
with the land (see Leviticus 25). And in reality, everything the Israelites
had was given by God, and their responsibility was to be careful stewards.
In the larger sense, this is true of humanity generally (see Genesis
1:28-30). But what this means is that personal property rights are relative;
it does not mean they are non-existent.
When God established the government of Israel, He did not build socialism
into the Law. In fact, the state was subject to the principle of personal
property rights. Even the abominable Ahab felt compelled to offer Naboth the
fair market value of his garden in Jezreel (1 Kings 21:2). Jezebel's scheme
to obtain Naboth's vineyard was the first example of state confiscation of
property in Scripture!
Many Christians are confused by the statements in the Book of Acts about the
generosity of the early Christians. Acts 4:34-35 says: "For there was not a
needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would
sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles'
feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need." However, this
beautiful example of love and compassion has nothing to do with socialism,
for two obvious reasons. First, this was not state coerced wealth
redistribution, but the voluntary choice of individuals. And second, these
individuals had total right to their own property. As Peter explains to
Ananias, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it
was sold, was it not under your control?" (Acts 5:4).
The Bible and Economic Egalitarianism
The second basic premise of socialism is economic equality. Under socialism
all class distinctions are removed by the redistribution of income. Marx
explained, "The proletariat (the working class) will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by all degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie (the
wealthy), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the
State" (Communist Manifesto, p. 104).
This belief is denied implicitly in Scripture. The Bible instead supports
the principle of sowing and reaping, of earning what you work for. This
implies that those who do not work will have less than those who do. Notice
these proverbs:
"Wealth obtained by fraud dwindles, But the one who gathers by labor
increases it" (Proverbs 13:11).
"Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, But the hand of the diligent
makes rich" (Proverbs 10:4).
"The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, But the soul of the
diligent is made fat" (Proverbs 13:4).
Nowhere in Scripture did God ordain economic equality. What He did reveal is
that there should be equal protection under the law (Deuteronomy 24:12-15)
and that there should be compassion for the poor (Deuteronomy 15:1-11). But
this was carried out through individual action and not through centralized
state control.
Why This Matters
There is no question that personal property rights are eroding at an
alarming rate in our country. The collective power of the state in our
country grows every year, and we are moving farther and farther away from
the limited government of the Constitution and closer and closer to
socialism. The only difference between the major political parties is how
fast the federal government will grow, not whether it will grow.
The reason this matters is because economic freedom is inseparably connected
to other freedoms. When and where the state controls property, it can coerce
behavior. As the federal government continues to grow here in America, other
freedoms are diminished, and that is cause for great alarm to those who
cherish the freedom of religion. As Ronald Nash observes, "Every person's
ultimate protection against coercion requires control over some private
spheres of life where he or she can be free. Private ownership of property
is an important buffer against the exorbitant consolidation of power by
government" (Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 178).
Concluding Thoughts
My defense of personal property rights in this article should not be taken
to be a cart blanche defense of capitalism. Recent corporate scandals in our
own country have highlighted the potential for abuse and fraud. The state
has an important function to insure equal justice under the law for its
citizens. But abuses of free market capitalism do not invalidate it in
principle. Further, I would suggest that the abuses of capitalism are mild
compared to the abuses that have occurred under socialism.
One thing socialists are correct about is that there must be accountability
at back of any economic system. The options are personal virtue and state
control. Marx rejected religion as the "opium of the people," contrived to
aid the upper class in its exploitation of the working class. In God's place
as sovereign he placed the state. By contrast, the vision of our founders
was rooted in the belief in rights that descend from God, and that "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" must be measured by that divine
standard.
One reason that our country is moving toward socialism is because we are
losing that shared belief in a sovereign creator. Our founders envisioned a
system in which government could be limited because individuals would govern
themselves. But as we lose a common sense of virtue in our society, a vacuum
of authority is created, and the state is all too eager to fill it.
Marx built his system on rank materialism. Since there is no afterlife, man
must make his own paradise on earth. "To abolish religion as the illusory
happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to
give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give
up a state of affairs which needs illusions" (Marx, Contribution to the
Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law).
Ironically, by gradually losing a common commitment to God, our capitalistic
society has become exactly what Marx caricatured capitalism to be: a society
in which "the family relation is reduced to a mere money relation"
(Manifesto, p. 82). Whether derived from a socialist perspective or a
capitalist perspective, materialism is an affront to God and to the dignity
of man. "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not
even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions"
(Luke 12:15).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 09:52:10 AM |
|
|
anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
:|
:|
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Isn't that just the most annoying thing.
:|>>:|One may post all kinds of evidence that contradicts DPR's dribble,
:|>>:|but he ignores it and proceeds with his childish attacks.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|tony b
:|>
:|>
:|> Welcome to the internet, and especially these newsgroups and the topic
:|> frequently "discussed" there, church state separation and all the subtopics
:|> associated with it, directly or indirectly (and some of them are pretty
:|> indirectly connected too)
:|>
:|> The most recent edition of usual trolls here do what you mention on a very
:|> regular basis.
:|>
:|> The DPRs (Dana), Strickland, Idontreply, kands00. AmbroseSearle AKA Rich
:|> Gardiner, CB, Bickaroo Bonzau, Joseph M Irvin, "Founding Father,"
:|> malcolmkirkpatrick, "Carlyle Groupie," "Martin McPhillips," David Lentz of
:|> these newsgrouops, with varying degrees of intelligence all seem to be
:|> graduates of the same school, i.e. the school of ignore all evidence and
:|> facts to the contrary and continue to say the same lies over and over and
:|> over again.
:|
:|What fun!
"Yes." Which is most of the above I have kill filed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:39:59 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9f4ksvop13vgdsfdjnpt9nvim07hacghbo@4ax.com...
anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
:|What fun!
"Yes." Which is most of the above I have kill filed.
No buckeye/jailbird or whatever identity you are using today. You put us in
your kill file because we were able to shred the articles you posted, and
point out all the mistakes. And all you have left to do is repost the same
articles over and over. You have never once been able to back up your claims
and your misguided notions of the Constitution, or what the founders meant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 11:17:47 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
I consider the dictionary to be a better source than a dimwit like
you.
lojbab
You konw nothing about me.
My LSAT, SAT, GRE, and Praxis scores all place me in the 97th percentile
(top 3% of those taking the test) or better. IQ tests have consistently
placed me well above genius level. I have attended three universities
over the course of 10 years and have degrees in language, literature,
philosophy and religion (including a doctorate).
I don't personally attack individuals online whom I have not met, nor
know nothing about.
You purport to be the founder of "The Logical Language Group".
Then you must clearly recognize your own arguments as childish ad
hominem remarks that lack all semblance of logic.
Rev. Dr. A Baldwin, BA, D.Div.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 11:43:58 AM |
|
|
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:%w4yb.35728$sD.27453@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
I consider the dictionary to be a better source than a dimwit like
you.
lojbab
You konw nothing about me.
He was talking to me. He was not addressing you.
My LSAT, SAT, GRE, and Praxis scores all place me in the 97th percentile
(top 3% of those taking the test) or better. IQ tests have consistently
placed me well above genius level. I have attended three universities
over the course of 10 years and have degrees in language, literature,
philosophy and religion (including a doctorate).
No Science, Math, or engineering, how come?
You purport to be the founder of "The Logical Language Group".
Then you must clearly recognize your own arguments as childish ad
hominem remarks that lack all semblance of logic.
That is Bob being Bob.
Rev. Dr. A Baldwin, BA, D.Div.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 11:30:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, anthony baldwin wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
I consider the dictionary to be a better source than a dimwit like
you.
lojbab
You konw nothing about me.
My LSAT, SAT, GRE, and Praxis scores all place me in the 97th percentile
(top 3% of those taking the test) or better. IQ tests have consistently
placed me well above genius level. I have attended three universities
over the course of 10 years and have degrees in language, literature,
philosophy and religion (including a doctorate).
I don't personally attack individuals online whom I have not met, nor
know nothing about.
His comments were directed toward DPR, with whom he has been communicating
for a v e r y l o n g time now. What does your resume have to do
with it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 06:18:56 PM |
|
|
anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
I consider the dictionary to be a better source than a dimwit like
you.
lojbab
You konw nothing about me.
Read my post again. I was talking to the other guy:
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:kafgsv01d1p6fimd8dpi53ce2sdofuckgg@4ax.com...
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Socialism has everything to do with the state
I consider the dictionary to be a better source than a dimwit like
you.
My LSAT, SAT, GRE, and Praxis scores all place me in the 97th percentile
(top 3% of those taking the test) or better. IQ tests have consistently
placed me well above genius level. I have attended three universities
over the course of 10 years and have degrees in language, literature,
philosophy and religion (including a doctorate).
I don't personally attack individuals online whom I have not met, nor
know nothing about.
I attack idiots on line who are rude jerks. This describes dpr, but
does not describe you so far as I can tell.
He is not worth wasting logic on, since he is incapable of
understanding it.
You purport to be the founder of "The Logical Language Group".
Then you must clearly recognize your own arguments as childish ad
hominem remarks that lack all semblance of logic.
dpr makes extensive use of ad hominem, and it seems to be one of the
few forms of response which he finds unable to ignore. He certainly
is incapable of debating the matters being discussed, which is why he
posts third party texts in volume rather than discussing even one
topic in depth.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:10:05 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
anthony baldwin <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
I consider the dictionary to be a better source than a dimwit like
you.
lojbab
You know nothing about me.
Read my post again. I was talking to the other guy:
I don't personally attack individuals online whom I have not met, nor
know nothing about.
I attack idiots on line who are rude jerks. This describes dpr, but
does not describe you so far as I can tell.
He is not worth wasting logic on, since he is incapable of
understanding it.
You purport to be the founder of "The Logical Language Group".
Then you must clearly recognize your own arguments as childish ad
hominem remarks that lack all semblance of logic.
dpr makes extensive use of ad hominem, and it seems to be one of the
few forms of response which he finds unable to ignore. He certainly
is incapable of debating the matters being discussed, which is why he
posts third party texts in volume rather than discussing even one
topic in depth.
lojbab
Well, I do apologize; I thought you (Bob) were calling me a dimwit.
I don't play basketball well and have little skill with a piano,
but I know I do some things well, like think, even if I do read posts a
bit hastily at times...
tony b
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
30 Nov 2003 01:30:45 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
dpr makes extensive use of ad hominem
No bob that is only your misguided opinion.
You are the one who has no facts to back up any of your silly misguided
positions and beliefs you have.
Now do mankind a favor and go jump in front of a speeding train.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 10:59:21 AM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
Socialism has everything to do with the state
You consistently make statements without backing them up with a shred of
truth or support.
This is called "begging the question" in logical terms.
This statement is both vague, and unsupported.
Your behaviour is illogical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 11:54:47 AM |
|
|
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:Jf4yb.32298$ZI7.7790@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
dpr wrote:
Socialism has everything to do with the state
You consistently make statements without backing them up with a shred of
truth or support.
History proves my point.
Socialism has always been state control.
Modern man and socialism always results in state control.
I have never bought into the argument that true socialism or communism has
been tried. Because those two ideologies have been tried and they ended up
being massive failures causing harm to many people.
http://www.chuckmorse.com/practice_of_socialism.html
When distilled to it,s bare knuckles, or brass knuckles, if you will,
Socialism advocates the literal physical control of all human beings by the
State. Socialists malevolently believe that man is incapable of self-rule
and that, therefore, authoritarian State control is a virtue. The Socialist
State possesses, they contend, a superior scientific wisdom which justifies
this control. They see the State as a vehicle toward the realization of
their twisted fantasy of a whole new world.
A prescient exposition of the nature of this sinister physical control
agenda was delivered in a speech by D. Richard L. Day, National Medical
Director of Planned Parenthood, 1965-1968, in Pittsburgh, 1969. In that
speech, described by a Dr. Lawrence Dunegan who was an attendee, Dr. Day
spoke of one of the most sacred rites of the left, controlling the
population growth of the world.
With regard to population control, Dr. Day stated that "Everything is in
place, and nobody can stop us now. This time were going to do it right.
Perhaps Dr. Day was lamenting over the failure of such Socialist programs as
the National Socialist Holocaust against the Jews or the Communist
liquidation, according to the Black Book of Communism, of over 100 million
souls. These examples of a controlled culling of the world,s population
perhaps didn't go far enough for Dr. Day and his ilk. The "population
explosion theory has, incidentally, been once again debunked by no less an
authority than Council on Foreign Relations Chairman Peter G. Peterson in
his book "Grey Dawn: How the Coming Age Wave will Transform America-And the
World.
Dr. Day goes on to lay out the plan: "contraceptives would be dispensed at
school; abortion would become legal and paid for by tax dollars (and)
homosexuality would be promoted as no longer to be considered abnormal
behavior Certainly since 1969, when this speech was delivered, all of these
things have come to pass. A curious dichotomy exists between the
encouragement of indiscriminate sexuality involving the dissemination of
condoms and the normalization, and therefore tacit endorsement, of
homosexual sex, with, at the same time, the encouragement of women to abort,
at government expense, their fetuses. The taxpayer, meanwhile, is asked to
transfer increasing amounts of capital to help cure AIDS while other
diseases get short shrift. To question these issues on moral grounds is to
be met with hysterical rage and accusations of discrimination while, at the
same time, information concerning the health consequences of these behaviors
is suppressed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 10:57:40 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
Early Christians did not live in socialist communes. And socialism with it's
disregard of the individual and it's worship of the state is at odds with
Christian belief in general.
Early Christians pooled resources for the welfare of all.
That is socialism.
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Merriam-Webster:
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state
This is slightly in error. In socialism there IS personal property. It
is in communism that there is not. (Merriam and Webster are not
infallible.) Production is not necessarily controlled by the state, but
financial resources are more in the control of the state, in that there
is higher taxation but the government provides more services, such as
health care, education and other necessary services. This is, for
example, as it is in Canada. People ownb businesses and homes and other
property and are in control of their own production, but the state takes
more of their produce/income from them than in our capitalist society
for the purposes of equitable redistribution. BUT, if a Canadian is
ill, he goes the the doctor and it's paid for, regardless of his income.
There are no slums in Canada, because housing is subsidized for those
whose income is insufficient, housing is subsidized in the same
neighborhoods wherein those with higher income live. Resources are more
equitably distributed. People do not become disgustingly rich by
exploiting others. People do not live in squalor while others live in
splendor. As a result, there is less crime.
Furthermore, socialism as an economic system coexists with democracy as
a gevernmental system in numerous nations. The state controls
resources, but the people control the state with their votes.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. People in these
socialist nations recognize that and know that what is good for everyone
is good for everyone. Their governments are not controlled by wealthy
individuals and rich corporations with money to bribe the politicians,
as it is here.
Personally, I am not one who believes in allowing people to loll about
at the expense of the hard work of others (unless they are truly unable
to work, as in elderly or disabled). But that means to me that rich
people should not be lolling about living off the hard work of those
they exploit anymore than others should sit about on welfare. Everyone
should work and contribute to the state, working and contributing to the
welfare of all. I envision a system where everyone works and
contributes and therefore earns the services that they receive as a
result of the work of all.
In general, people aren't rich because they are better than others or
work harder and people aren't poor because they are lazy or don't work.
Often those who work hardest receive the least for their labors and
this is unjust. (No, I am not blind to the fact that there are those
who manipulate our social services system, but this is a minority, not
the majority of those who receive social services.)
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
socialism of type b might fit your description, but socialism of type
a could exist with any form of government/state or none.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: army visit to school |
29 Nov 2003 12:05:10 PM |
|
|
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
news:8e4yb.32297$ZI7.28791@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
Early Christians did not live in socialist communes. And socialism with
it's
disregard of the individual and it's worship of the state is at odds
with
Christian belief in general.
Early Christians pooled resources for the welfare of all.
That is socialism.
Very common misconception of Christian history and belief, by those who
either do not know better or are simply lying.
http://www.faithandthought.com/marx.htm
Without question the most fundamental tenet of socialism is the rejection of
personal property rights. "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence: Abolition of private property" (Karl Marx, The
Communist Manifesto, p. 96 [Penguin Classics edition]). Socialism instead
argues for state control of the means of production.
The Bible explicitly rejects this belief. The simplest way to illustrate
this is with the Ten Commandments. "You shall not covet your neighbor's
house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife of his male servant or his
female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your
neighbor" (Exodus 20:17). Not only was outright theft prohibited (Exodus
20:15), merely coveting the property of someone else was proscribed. The
tenth command explicitly endorses the concept of personal property rights.
Of course this right was not absolute, particularly with regard to the land
God gave the Israelites. Israel knew that the land ultimately belonged to
the Lord, and that indeed "the earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains"
(Psalm 24:1). God placed strict laws in place about what Israel could do
with the land (see Leviticus 25). And in reality, everything the Israelites
had was given by God, and their responsibility was to be careful stewards.
In the larger sense, this is true of humanity generally (see Genesis
1:28-30). But what this means is that personal property rights are relative;
it does not mean they are non-existent.
When God established the government of Israel, He did not build socialism
into the Law. In fact, the state was subject to the principle of personal
property rights. Even the abominable Ahab felt compelled to offer Naboth the
fair market value of his garden in Jezreel (1 Kings 21:2). Jezebel's scheme
to obtain Naboth's vineyard was the first example of state confiscation of
property in Scripture!
Many Christians are confused by the statements in the Book of Acts about the
generosity of the early Christians. Acts 4:34-35 says: "For there was not a
needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would
sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles'
feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need." However, this
beautiful example of love and compassion has nothing to do with socialism,
for two obvious reasons. First, this was not state coerced wealth
redistribution, but the voluntary choice of individuals. And second, these
individuals had total right to their own property. As Peter explains to
Ananias, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it
was sold, was it not under your control?" (Acts 5:4).
The second basic premise of socialism is economic equality. Under socialism
all class distinctions are removed by the redistribution of income. Marx
explained, "The proletariat (the working class) will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by all degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie (the
wealthy), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the
State" (Communist Manifesto, p. 104).
This belief is denied implicitly in Scripture. The Bible instead supports
the principle of sowing and reaping, of earning what you work for. This
implies that those who do not work will have less than those who do. Notice
these proverbs:
"Wealth obtained by fraud dwindles, But the one who gathers by labor
increases it" (Proverbs 13:11).
"Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, But the hand of the diligent
makes rich" (Proverbs 10:4).
"The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, But the soul of the
diligent is made fat" (Proverbs 13:4).
Nowhere in Scripture did God ordain economic equality. What He did reveal is
that there should be equal protection under the law (Deuteronomy 24:12-15)
and that there should be compassion for the poor (Deuteronomy 15:1-11). But
this was carried out through individual action and not through centralized
state control.
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Merriam-Webster:
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state
This is slightly in error. In socialism there IS personal property.
No socialism does not recognize personal property, that is the whole point.
Which is why people reject the ideology of socialism. Yes granted you can
wish all you want that socialism recognizes personal property, but the
second you try to implement that, mankind being what it is will throw that
right out the window. This is why socialism has never succeded, not that it
is a bad idea, but the way man has implemented it has always resulted in one
group (the state) controlling another group of people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "anthony baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Democratic Socialism (was army visit to school) |
30 Nov 2003 01:59:48 AM |
|
|
dpr wrote:
"anthony baldwin" <anthonybaldwin@snet.net> wrote in message
Early Christians pooled resources for the welfare of all.
That is socialism.
Acts 4:34-35 says: "For there was not a
needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would
sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles'
feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need."
Well, that rather proves my point, then, doesn't it?
However, this
beautiful example of love and compassion has nothing to do with socialism,
for two obvious reasons. First, this was not state coerced wealth
redistribution, but the voluntary choice of individuals.
Yes, but you miss the point of Democratic Socialism, in which it is the
people who make the decisions. The State IS the people, the people are
the State.
The second basic premise of socialism is economic equality. Under socialism
all class distinctions are removed by the redistribution of income. Marx
explained, "The proletariat (the working class) will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by all degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie (the
wealthy), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the
State" (Communist Manifesto, p. 104).
This belief is denied implicitly in Scripture. The Bible instead supports
the principle of sowing and reaping, of earning what you work for. This
implies that those who do not work will have less than those who do.
Oh, sure, and Bill Gates, sitting in his $1200 leather chair in Redmond
is certainly working harder than the Hispanic woman next door working 18
hours a day as a nurse's aid to support her family and struggling to pay
the gas heat bill...I guess she deserves to have so little for being so
lazy. One can work themselves to the bone in this nation and not have a
dime to show for it. In order to make money, you must have money,
because money, in this capitalist system, grants one the power to
exploit others. The ideals of socialism are grounded in cooperation,
whereas capitalism is grounded in competition and exploitation.
And, as far as the idea that people can't govern themselves, isn't that
what you fundamentalists are trying to sell by manipulating everyone
into behaving in accordance with YOUR beliefs? Why else do you wish to
censor and control everyone? Because you believe they are all depraved.
But the Bible says, it is for God to judge. Jesus never said to force
others to behave as though they believe.
There are (at least) two distinct meanings of socialism, one of which
does not have anything to do with "the state".
Merriam-Webster:
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b
Socialism in this sense is that of communism also known as national
socialism or authoritatian socialism. Communism can not exist apart
from this concept of socialism, but socialism most certainly CAN exist
apart from communism, in a Democratic Socialist society in which
personal property IS protected, but financial resources are equitably
distributed, as in the following definition:
: a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state (or collectively owned by the people. my addendum)
Notice it says "the means of production are controlled by the state".
That does not mean that individuals don't own their homes, cars and
personal effects.
AND, as I've explained, democratic socialism means that the state is
controlled by the people, anyways, therefore implying that the people
oversee the redistribution of resources.
socialism has never succeded, not that it
is a bad idea, but the way man has implemented it has always resulted in one
group (the state) controlling another group of people.
As opposed to capitalism where one group (the wealthy) control another
group (the state AND the lower and middle classes).
The difference being, of course, that in socialism resources are
distributed equitably so that those purportedly being controlled at
least have equal access to nutrition, education and health care.
Further, in a system devoid of greedy capitalist monopolies (like
Microsoft, for instance), the government would not be manipulated by
wealthy entities (corporations or individuals) and could therefore serve
the greater good, instead of the good of those with greater bankrolls,
as everyone would have an equal voice in government independent of their
ability or inability to bribe politicians.
Democratic socialism has and does work.
http://www.socialistinternational.org/maps/english/worldmap.htm
I offer the following: (from
http://expandyourmind.tripod.com/whatisdemocraticsocialism.htm)
What is Democratic Socialism?
Socialism in its essence is a state of society in which all people work
cooperatively as equals for the common good of all. In recent times
people who hold this principle have been describing this principle as
democratic socialism, to distinguish the principle from authoritarian
and undemocratic states which have wrongly described themselves as
socialist in character.
Origins of Democratic Socialism
The word socialism , as it first appeared, was used in publications
devoted to cooperatives in Great Britain. Socialism was used to describe
a society in which people work together to increase the benefit of all.
Another underlying assumption was that people are, by natural rights,
equals. Socialists have always been recognized for upholding the
principle of the equality of peoples as a highest value.
Socialism describes a society in which people work together to increase
the benefit of all.
Because Socialists value the principle of equality, persons truly
socialist in spirit value democracy as a vital political principle. In a
democracy, each person has the right to be heard and to be given due
consideration. The government is chosen by a vote of the people. This is
the basis for the label democratic socialist.
This label is used to distinguish democratic socialists from people who
improperly call themselves socialist and do not support the values of
both equality and democracy.
Principles of Democratic Socialism
Democratic socialism implies certain other values in human conduct:
No person should exploit any other person. This principle of opposition
to exploitation is especially important in labor relations. Natural
resources should not be exploited or wasted. Changes in society and its
governments should be made by free and open elections. Thus, democratic
socialism ought to be achieved through the ballot box.
Widespread and full public education is essential to guarantee the
equality of people. People must have information and be allowed to
communicate their ideas.
Public Enterprise in some economic activities is necessary to help
people attain economic and social equality. The government should
undertake to do for them what people cannot do well for themselves.
Public enterprise leads to the common definition of socialism found in
dictionaries: "the public or collective ownership of the means of
production and distribution and the democratic management thereof."
Democratic socialists support the principles of democratic collective
ownership of the basic means of production and the priniciple of
democratic management. Therefore, democratic socialists support not only
public ownership, but cooperative ownership of economic functions.
Because Socialists value the principle of equality, persons truly
socialist in spirit value democracy as a vital political principle.
Democratic socialists support the idea of democratic public control of
those activities which are described as "the commanding heights" of the
economy, but do not support the idea of state ownership of every human
enterprise.
Socialism Misused
Certain societies have sometimes disguised themselves by using the term
socialism.. "National socialism" advocates a one-party dictatorial
society. "Communism" has frequently been used by political parties
advocating and implementing a one-party society with very limited
democratic practices. However, a truly communal society would be very
democratic, as were some early societies in the Americas.
Your arguments are at least becoming harder to dismiss as mere insults.
There was substance to this post. You must have done your homework,
finally. Took you long enough...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|