Threatened by God, Family and Individuals

[ClayBarham]

In any society, what really matters most, the individual or the community? Which is most important to a good life for the greatest number of people? Today’s American Democrats all generally agree that community is most important, while a few Republicans are still committed to legitimate individual self-interest as most important. To the Democrat, the tribe is more important, while some Republicans believe the only community that means more than individuals is their family.

If family is most important, it is because individuals in the family are willing to give up some of the things they would like to do to make certain the family is secure and happy. If community is more important, it means that individuals must give up what they would like to do in order to submit to the needs of community. In the family, usually the father or mother, as leader or both leading, decide what is in the best interests of their family. At the same time, they are equally concerned about the best interests of each individual in it. In the tribe, the leader of that tribe, whether chief or king, decides what is in the best interests of the tribe and cannot be concerned about individuals in it. Individuals, to the tribe, are expendable, easily sacrificed if believed better for the tribe. The leader of the family is not normally willing to sacrifice any one of its members. Instead, he will find ways to keep all of them united. In a family, each person has great value. In the tribe, value depends on the contribution one makes to the tribe. The tribe does not recognize legitimate individual self-interests or the psychic needs of any individual.

America grew economically stronger than other nations in the world because it started with the family, and that legitimate individual self-interests expressed provided the growth none other has known. Our government was self-government, not the fulfillment of a king’s decree. Our laws and governing frameworks grew from self-government, where each member of each family, and families united in communities, behave properly. They followed higher laws than those provided by other men. They believed in a higher power than government, and the rules of behavior expressed in the Bible. America rose out of a belief in God and was family-centered. These are what modern American Democrats want to change. By making community or tribe, superior to individuals and families, and eliminating any recognition of a higher authority than man, it is possible to bring back a system where a few elite rule the many. It is a return to the Old World two-class society.

Individuals serve God in the Judeo-Christian beliefs. God speaks only to individuals, not to groups. God is the superior, the parent for each individual, and His leadership is more important than some governor’s decree. This, however, interferes with human rule.

With this in mind, it is easier to see why the Democrats want God out of the public view and want community defined and led by those who claim to be most worthy and elite. The three things whose importance is to be diluted before Democrats can dominate, are God, the Family and individual self-interests. These three things are roadblocks to any concentration of political power in the hands of a few who would rule the many.

In the campaigning of 2008, Democrats are critical of Republicans who stand for God, families, country and individuals, because they assume more Americans today want these things out of public life and will vote for Democrats to rid us of them. The media pokes fun at Huckabee and Romney because they are out front for God. They want one of them to run against the Democrat candidate for president, as they believe most Americans will simply laugh at them for their beliefs. These men, and others who profess to follow God, have proclaimed their behavior reflects the teachings of the Bible. Lying, cheating, deceit, lack of honor and desires to enrich themselves with power and treasure is more likely the behavior of those who do not believe in God. Are Americans willing to have more of that conduct just to avoid having someone who believes in God in the top office? Even if you do not like God, can you quibble with the behavior of those who do? I guess we will find out at the end of 2008.

[bobbylien]

Heck yeah, spoil yourself... fuck everybody else! Great philosophy there.

[ClayBarham]

So, you are one of those who agrees that we must get God, families and individuals out and bring in the secular leaders and return to the Old World ways where community is properly managed by caring elites who do not believe in God?

[Buck Laser]

And the LORD said "my people are a stiff-necked people..." Clay, YHWH has always spoken of his people, not individuals. I think it's time you came to the realization that your individualistic solipsism has no place in a realistic understanding of the Judaeo-Christian faith. It's a bit more at home in the American tradition, but your insistence on your foolish ideas is really pretty pathetic. May I suggest that you apply yourself to a conscientious study of American history during your dotage?

[ViolaLee]

What's a flock? A bunch of random individuals? Or a community?

What's a congregation?

[BillyPilgrim]

A pride?

[ClayBarham]

You make my point, that all you left-leaners, including the one who calls himself libertarian, believe in the sanctity of the mob lead by an elite, and that's the way life is supposed to be, 'cause otherwise you have these troubling innovators and entrepreneurs, people like Edison, Ford, Carver and the like who upset the tranquility of boring sameness of life in the mob.....sort of thing.

[ViolaLee]

Clay are you a supporter of the ACLU?

[moses2792796]

In general the 'people' are incapable of a direct relationship with "God". That is why the church and the monarchy have always had power over them.

[Elrathin]

So, you are one of those who agrees that we must get God, families and individuals out and bring in the secular leaders and return to the Old World ways where community is properly managed by caring elites who do not believe in God?


So why is a leader who believes in God better than one who doesn't?

[AnnEsthesia]

Because he said so... dur.

[jafar00]

What's a Judeo-Christian? Is it like a Sikho-Hari Krishna?

[ClayBarham]

Gee whiz, you really don't know what that means. You might want to Google it, or do you know what that means?

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, I think it is a fair question, since you do not know what a liberal is or stands for, Clay. :)

[ClayBarham]

Oh crap! All these years wasted! Please ask the few who bought my books to send them back, and give my pardon to all those audiences I have stood before expressing all that historical and sociological trash too. Oh, I'm so ashamed. Why didn't I listen only to you, keeper of all wisdom and knowledge.

[Kamehameha34]

A community mindset is a very important social issue, it's just not up to the government to enforce it.

That's the problem with both mainstream political parties - they think the government is the only body capable of doing anything.

[ClayBarham]

eh bruddah! da kine government is never capable of doing anyting. And that from a Roosevelt High grad.

[preservanation]

LOL, Clay!
Looks like we gotst a Constitutionalists, Originalist, Federalist, Libertarian amoungust.
Yeeee Haw!
Welome, Kamehameha34

[ClayBarham]

And a king to boot?

[ed0316]

I've noticed that God talks to a lot of people... mainly right wingers. I sure wish he'd get his story straight, because he keeps giving people different directions on how to manage my life. When I was younger, they had a definition for people that heard voices... now they call them "the Religious right."
When 3 of a party's candidates do not accept evolution as a scientific fact... I consider them nuts that are a danger to the future of this country. When I was young, you kept your mouth shut about your religion & respected views of others within our American society... now people respect no one's religion or lack thereof but their own.

[Buck Laser]

Oh crap! All these years wasted! Please ask the few who bought my books to send them back, and give my pardon to all those audiences I have stood before expressing all that historical and sociological trash too. Oh, I'm so ashamed. Why didn't I listen only to you, keeper of all wisdom and knowledge.

Ah! Clay's finally realized he's lost. I can schedule him into the next re-education camp right after the holidays. And Clay, the shots won't hurt a bit! You might even grow to like them. And don't worry about the water boarding--every one of your friends has assured us that it's NOTHING like torture. You could even grow to like it.

[NortheastCynic]

Back to the original post:

Clay,
Personally, I don't like Huckabee because I see his almost theocratic nature as overtly anti-individual and anti-freedom. I have no problem with religion or Christianity, being one myself...What I DO have a problem with is using government power to promote or legislate religious beliefs. Gov't promotion of religion and/or legislation of religious beliefs promote the anti-individual and anti-freedom environment which you rightly decry.

-NC

[PatrickHenry]

Still looking for the insignificant differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, Clay?

I am a firm believer in individual responsibility.

What happens when individuals are pushed to the wall by organizations?

Should they resist individually or should they coalesce to fight back?

[ed0316]

With this in mind, it is easier to see why the Democrats want God out of the public view and want community defined and led by those who claim to be most worthy and elite. The three things whose importance is to be diluted before Democrats can dominate, are God, the Family and individual self-interests. These three things are roadblocks to any concentration of political power in the hands of a few who would rule the many.

In the campaigning of 2008, Democrats are critical of Republicans who stand for God, families, country and individuals, because they assume more Americans today want these things out of public life and will vote for Democrats to rid us of them. The media pokes fun at Huckabee and Romney because they are out front for God. They want one of them to run against the Democrat candidate for president, as they believe most Americans will simply laugh at them for their beliefs. These men, and others who profess to follow God, have proclaimed their behavior reflects the teachings of the Bible. Lying, cheating, deceit, lack of honor and desires to enrich themselves with power and treasure is more likely the behavior of those who do not believe in God. Are Americans willing to have more of that conduct just to avoid having someone who believes in God in the top office? Even if you do not like God, can you quibble with the behavior of those who do? I guess we will find out at the end of 2008.


Clay, indeed we will, the GOP with their hypocracy makes me want to throw up. I'm sick of some Bible thumping twit raiding the treasury & & starting religious wars, so I wouldn't vote either Huckabee or Romney in as dog catcher. Chuckle, I'm also a bit sick of the Democrats hanging their political hat on a defeat in Iraq, but I'll probably vote for Edwards... his hair cuts I can afford and he views our Corporate Republic with the same skepticism that I do.
Ed

[ClayBarham]

Ah yes, all those giant corporations led by full time democrats benefiting by all moves made by the dems to cripple entrepreneurs through higher corporate taxes, thus driving jobs offshore. That's what you really want? And, was the Civil War a religious war? Oh, I guess it was because its aim was to rid us of slavery, a religious concept. The Second World War a religious war? Maybe it was, since its aim was to rid the world of secular dictators who murdered and plundered. Yep, I can understand why you wouldn't want anyone like those Bible-thumpers in charge, they seem to follow the rules and won't steal to feather their own nest as much as some of those who have proven their deceits and applaud them.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Without individuals, there can be no community.

Happiness of the individual is requirement for a happy community.

Happiness of the individual requires selfishness, something both major parties canidates love to deny.

The individuals liberty is the measure of a nations greatness, not its tax extorted riches.

[Shintao]

Ah yes, all those giant corporations led by full time democrats benefiting by all moves made by the dems to cripple entrepreneurs through higher corporate taxes, thus driving jobs offshore.

Higher corporate taxes is a good thing. When corporations were paying their fair share, more people were working and able to spend the extra tax money (that Corps paid) to buy stuff which created jobs, and corporations were not leaving America. In fact the idea that corporate taxes are bad was started by the conservatives to sell America out to foreigners, move corps to foreiner shores & shipp our jobs to India & China, and I can see their plan worked. Some of the biggest corporations in America are foreign owned and offshoring. Follow your leaders Clay, but don't try to lay that off on Liberals.

Yep, I can understand why you wouldn't want anyone like those Bible-thumpers in charge, they seem to follow the rules and won't steal to feather their own nest as much as some of those who have proven their deceits and applaud them.


LOL! :rolleyes: Yes, forget the bible thumpers, they lie, they cheat, and spend more time forgiving themselves than anybody on earth. I would think Christians could have a role model that they could point to, like the Pope. You know a find political conservative to hold up on the stick like a candy apple, and say see har!!!

[AlanC]

Higher corporate taxes is a good thing. When corporations were paying their fair share, more people were working and able to spend the extra tax money (that Corps paid) to buy stuff which created jobs, and corporations were not leaving America.

How exactly is it that working people had access to corporations tax money to buy stuff with?

And wouldn't higher taxes be more likely to push corporations off shore than lower taxes?

You do know who it is that ultimately pays all taxes, don't you?

[NortheastCynic]

I have yet to hear the definition of this "fair" thing.

-NC

[Elrathin]

And wouldn't higher taxes be more likely to push corporations off shore than lower taxes?



Bush has lowered Corporate taxes more than any other president. So, has that encouraged companies to bring their businesses back from overseas? Of course not because no matter what corporate breaks you give some companies they will NEVER bring back the business.

So tax their asses since they don't want to bring American Workers. I say give tax breaks to corporations willing to employ an AMERICAN workforce and push those overseas out of business or to employ Americans.[hr]
I have yet to hear the definition of this "fair" thing.

-NC


You're right there is no such thing, so start taxing Businesses in America that won't employ an American Work force so they don't go overseas. Nothing is fair right? so might as well go fair on America.

[AlanC]

So tax their asses since they don't want to bring American Workers. I say give tax breaks to corporations willing to employ an AMERICAN workforce and push those overseas out of business or to employ Americans.


Well my theory is that you tax things you want to discourage and subsidize things you want to encourage. So this is one tax idea that I could actually support.

But I would make it a sur tax on any jobs sent off shore. If you make it a tax credit for hiring Americans, someone will call it corporate welfare.

And the revenue could be used to further fund the unemployment insurance fund.

[NortheastCynic]

Elrathin,
All I did was ask what 'fair' is. I'm not sure what implications your making from that question...But my question remains unanswered.

-NC

[Elrathin]

But my question remains unanswered.

-NC


Of course your question goes un-answered because it depends on which side you're looking from.

Fair to corporations would mean whatever makes them a profit no matter what.

Fair to the American worker would mean they get the jobs instead of the AMERICAN companies going overseas.

I'm sure there are other sides that can let you know what their idea of fair is too. Fair is SUBJECTIVE.[hr]
Well my theory is that you tax things you want to discourage


We have a sales tax so are you saying we are discouraging sales?

[NortheastCynic]

Indeed, fair IS subjective. So who exactly gets to decide what "fair" is with regard to taxation and corporations, and why?

-NC

[AlanC]

We have a sales tax so are you saying we are discouraging sales?

If your municipality's tax is higher than surrounding communities, that is exactly what you are doing.

[ed0316]

Ah yes, all those giant corporations led by full time democrats benefiting by all moves made by the dems to cripple entrepreneurs through higher corporate taxes, thus driving jobs offshore. That's what you really want? And, was the Civil War a religious war? Oh, I guess it was because its aim was to rid us of slavery, a religious concept. The Second World War a religious war? Maybe it was, since its aim was to rid the world of secular dictators who murdered and plundered. Yep, I can understand why you wouldn't want anyone like those Bible-thumpers in charge, they seem to follow the rules and won't steal to feather their own nest as much as some of those who have proven their deceits and applaud them.


Clay, since you appear to be a victim of right wing revisionism, let me give you a history lesson. Democrats were in charge when Pearl Harbor was bombed (I listened to radio accounts of the bombing at the time). We fought in WW2 & Korea when the pledge did not contain the "Under God" clause in it & obviously did well without that phrase.
As to the civil war, this was a tarrif war & not a war to free slaves... a very small group even cared about slaves, until it was determined the South was using them to produce War goods. The emancipation proclaimation was issued in hopes of depriving the South of their slave labor & it was not issued until 1863.
Now as to NAFTA & outsourcing jobs by Clinton & Bush... both parties are complicit in this piece of legislation designed by the "free traitor" cult of investors. The reason I am an independent, is because I see the hypocracy of both parties, but your buddy George & his cronies have become the biggest threat to this country since WW2.

[Deadshot]

What's so funny about Clay's posts of late is how people keep fighting him with logic, read ed's post above for the most recent example, yet Clay just doesn't get it. So I have a question for Clay...

The majority of answers to your posts are to point out how wrong or simply historically inaccurate that they are. So, what is it that we're missing?

[ClayBarham]

You are missing the history books prior to Howard Zinn, I guess. I know the folks today have little opportunity of reading about America's beginnings and the great names associated with it, but I grew up in a time when we could read all about it. You are fixed on the rewriting of history to show America as one of the worst experiences of the world, particularly when compared to such heaven-on-earth examples of Stalin's USSR.

[Deadshot]

You are missing the history books prior to Howard Zinn, I guess. I know the folks today have little opportunity of reading about America's beginnings and the great names associated with it, but I grew up in a time when we could read all about it. You are fixed on the rewriting of history to show America as one of the worst experiences of the world, particularly when compared to such heaven-on-earth examples of Stalin's USSR.


Evidence? Proof?

Clay, I have never said such a thing. America is the greatest experiment in the history of the world. Stalin's USSR was hell on earth, he killed and imprisoned over 75 million people!

Clay, you need proof or a logical arguement, PLEASE have one or the other. BTW, when you accuse someone of doing this or that, please provide some evidence.

[Osborn F. Enready]

If you want some truth about our economy problems, look to Ron Paul, check out his website, google his Congressional speeches, on currency, the fed, and under the title "currency destruction".

[Keith Hamburger]

The OP made some assumptions and assertions that are just plain wrong.

The "tribe" wasn't the problem. Tribes and clans were simply extended families. Usually they didn't claim any authority or responsibility to anyone but their fellow members. There was no geographical claim of sovereignity. They might fight to defend their hunting grounds but they didn't claim that just because someone lived in a certain area they should control them. The leaders knew everyone as an individual and WAS worried about the individual members.

When things went to a claim of sovereignty beyond the family to a claim of control over a geographic area is when everything went to hell. Perhaps it was about the time that God told Moses to kill all the Canaanites (read, Phoenecians) and take their land. Much like the Isreali propoganda has told us about the Pakistanis, the Canaanites were presented as backward and wasteful of the land. But, Jericho is commonly held to be the first walled city, that doesn't sound too backward to me. And, the Phoenecians are believed to have been, by scientific archaeologists, a very advanced civilaztion. But, to admit that would be to admit that what is taught in the Bible is just wrong an immoral. And that the Jews taking land from the Pakistanis might be the same thing.

What does matter is the individual, and what those groups of individuals can do by working together, voluntarily and without force. There is only one candidate that supports that belief and position in the race today.

I'm fairly certain that the OP is not speaking of supporting that candidate.

Keith

[ClayBarham]

The OP might be more inclined to Ron Paul, certainly the main points of his platform are closer to the writer of the OP (that's me, of course), though some of those who write in support of Ron Paul are off the charts when it comes to arrogance and nastiness (not you, Osborn). But, sociologically speaking, tribal chiefs had problems with retaining power and were brutal to opposing factions, just as kings and dictators were/are in larger tribes, called nations. Recall what Acton said about power corrupting, absolute power corrupting absolutely? It works in all groups, even our own local associations have their share of it.