Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

You have a really screwed up, extremist idea of what socialism is. This seems a common thing with Yanks for some reason.The European version of social democracy is a progressive pluralist economic model that has a more equal spread of wealth berween its citizens with a relatively high safety net. It works and it creates the happiest societies we've so far managed as a species.

To build on what Tangle just said, you do realize that social security, Medicare and Medicaid are socialist programs. As are welfare and unemployment. Depends upon what happens to you and whether you need to draw upon a social safety net or not. If you live out your life healthy and employed and with hefty retirement funds then improved social programs would not make your life any better. But if you experience any catastrophic health problems you wouldn't risk destitution. If you become unemployed for a couple years you wouldn't use up your savings (specifics differ greatly by country). And if you're unable to save enough for retirement the European equivalent of social security wouldn't have you end up living like a pauper or with your children.--Percy

Specifically, what do you think would get worse?

Phat said:

quote:

---

Under socialism, that same middle class, as I understand it, would eventually blend in with the masses below them...leaving the small oligarchy at the top to contend with.

---

Tangle said:

quote:

---

You have a really screwed up, extremist idea of what socialism is. This seems a common thing with Yanks for some reason.

​

The European version of social democracy is a progressive pluralist economic model that has a more equal spread of wealth berween its citizens with a relatively high safety net. It works and it creates the happiest societies we've so far managed as a species.

---

The way the American public sees things, it would take massive tax increases to get a ONLY A tiny percentage of what is required to fund really big ("socialistic") programs that could make any difference.Obama kept beating the tax increases for "the wealthy" ("raise your hand if you make over $250,000") idea, and gave the impression that it would pay for a whole range of programs, from health care to education, plus reduce the deficit significantly.He would always laugh when (essentially) nobody put their hand up when he asked the $250,000 question. Like you could just tap a few rich folks a little more (35% tax rate would be upped to 39.6%), and all problems could be magically solved.He got elected on the idea of tax increases for those making over $250,000 a year and sworn in January 2009.That ended up being too painful for the "middle class", so the 4.6% increase was limited to those making over $450,000, and it took till January of 2013 for that to happen.It amounted to just $60 billion a year (would have been $80 billion a year if those making over $250,000 were taxed the extra 4.6% too).Republicans seem to have won (for now?) this argument that centers around the idea that big programs are too expensive, and there is no room in any potential budget for more programs.Look at the numbers.The economy will be hurt too badly, if $500 billion in extra revenue a year is sought under the current tax increasing conventions.$500 billion a year is not a lot, it is actually about what is left of the ongoing Bush tax cuts, and less than the roughly $700 billion a year in Bush+Trump tax cuts.But, in getting $500 billion a year, a tax increase ONLY on those making $450,000 a year, would require a 65% tax rate for that group. So it does seem to be something that could be more hurtful to the economy than what the potential "socialistic" benefits might be worth.Look at the Republican arguments:Jimmy Carter left office when taxes were 70%, and people don't have fond memories of that period. It was a period when there were a ton of tax loopholes too.The loophole issue would make the $500 billion a year revenue increaser be more like $250-$300 billion a year. Then you have the economic drag factoring in which could easily put the revenue under $200 billion a year despite a 65% marginal tax rate on "the wealthy".(though the "socialistic" programs could very well end up being a powerful counter to the economic drag, since they will be seen as helpful to the economy to whatever extent the Democrats can argue)Democrats are allergic to any sort of tax increases on anybody other than the super-wealthy. All of their arguments center around avoiding any sort of pain for 98% (those making over $250,000 a year) if not the 99% (those making over $450,000 a year).Republicans simply say, "you want a $4 trillion dollar health care program, but raising marginal tax rates all the way to '100%' wont bring in $800 billion a year even under the most rosy economic circumstances".And, when one looks at the spending front for revenue, Democrats have written off military budget cuts as well.Democrats need to come to grips with the revenue problem, but they have built a foundation on top of the total taboo which makes it an abomination to even consider returning to the way things were before the Bush-era.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I don't know how this thread got onto socialism, but I want to take it back to the book reading program I mentioned earlier when the book being read was The Coming Pagan Utopia edited by Peter Jones.The program finished that book and has now taken up one by the editors of World Magazine, a Christian publication that started up in 1986. The book is Prodigal Press which appears to be about how journalism in America went from a predominantly Christian focus to Christianity-bashing with an aggressively secular focus, at least since the nineteenth century but increasing in recent years, though I have to reread it to get a clearer sense of the time frame they are talking about.I missed part of it but heard this morning's reading of the 1988 Introduction and the Introduction to the revised 2013 edition. Already gives a lot of information that's new to me, about just how very Christian American journalism really was before whatever time it changed. Like the book on the coming Pagan Utopia this is probably one I should get too though reading remains difficult for me and finances aren't exactly abundant either.I'm quite sure nobody here has any idea of how Christian our news media were at one time either. I think he said there were 80 {correction: it was 52} newspapers in New York City alone with an overtly Christian point of view. Such a dramatic change also suggests that today's dominant opinions have been manufactured for you and I bet you don't know that either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Changed date of World Magazine to 1986 from 1988, and number of Christian publications in New York to 52 from 80.

I am somewhat confident that 100% of the members here are aware that 21st century America is more secular than 19th century America, which is the rather mundane fact that this book is sensationalising.

I'm pretty sure nobody here has any real appreciation for just how Christian journalism was in earlier times, and the nation as a whole. Because over and over I keep hearing it argued that the nation was never really Christian. You should have objected to that and you didn't, nor did anyone else here who supposedly is aware of this as you claim. In any case I had no idea that newspapers were so explicitly Christian and I'm sure you didn't either.ABE: AND, I'm really really sure that you and others here are not aware of the aggressive purging of our Christian past that has been done by this new secular media either. Since the effect would be that nobody has any appreciation any more of just HOW Christian we were the absence of such information wouldn't mean anything to anyone. The Protestant Reformation being completely left out of history texts? Changing "Thank God'" to "Thank goodness" in a direct quote? And a lot more than that. We aren't just more secular, there is a concerted effort to eradicate all traces of our former Christian identity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't read every post on the forum nor respond to most that I disagree with. I'm quite a contrary type so I'd be here all day if I tried that!I'm not sure what specific posts you're referencing, but usually when people say the US was never a Christian nation I think they're talking about the constitutional basis of the state. This is not the same as the question of how religious the society was. That Western society was a lot more Christian in the past is hardly a secret. This applies to US society in particular, where the decline in religious belief is more recent and slower than it has been in most of the industrialised world. Obviously we don't have opinion polls from the 19th century, but the patterns pretty clear by comparing generations. The below shows reported religious affiliation of white British adults year on year. As you can see, the religiosity of each generation doesn't change so much over time, but each successive generation is less religious. The US shows a similar but less dramatic pattern (though note the two are not directly comparable - the UK case is reported religious affiliaiton; the US survey is asking about church attendance) This is all common knowledge. I'm unclear why you're pretending to be surprised.

quote:

---

ABE: AND, I'm really really sure that you and others here are not aware of the aggressive purging of our Christian past that has been done by this new secular media either. Since the effect would be that nobody has any appreciation any more of just HOW Christian we were the absence of such information wouldn't mean anything to anyone. The Protestant Reformation being completely left out of history texts? Changing "Thank God'" to "Thank goodness" in a direct quote? And a lot more than that. We aren't just more secular, there is a concerted effort to eradicate all traces of our former Christian identity.

---

The decline of religious belief is openly discussed in the 'secular media' you distrust so much. Theres nothing hidden here.Incidentally, I've no idea what you're referencing, but replacing 'Thank God' with 'Thank goodness' looks much more like religious prudery than secularist manipulation. Of the same line with silly phrases like 'dang it all to heck'.

Yes of course that is all well known. What is not so well known is how much of that was engineered, much of it by biased antiChristian media and lying textbooks, and just how very very Christian we were in the past. Anyway I'm going to read that book because I do expect to learn new things from it although everybody else here is probably content with the status quo, having no idea how their opinions have been intentionally manipulated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read that preview. Prodigal Press: Confronting the Anti-Christian Bias of the American News Media (Revised and Updated Edition) Caffeine does make a point: The journalists were biased towards a Christian worldview whereas today journalists are biased towards a secular worldview. Granted journalism by definition *should* be objective, but this book makes a case that there is really no such thing as absolute objectivity. The authors feel that we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and I can see their point.
The original book is available online here. The authors note in Chapter 3

quote:

---

Coverage of Sensation and Disaster:
The Gaining and Keeping of Audiences

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "sensation" as "a condition of excited feeling produced in a community by some occurrence; a strong impression produced in an audience or body of spectators." Sensationalism, then, is the attempt in works of literature or art to produce such responses. One example given of usage, from 1863, is a comment on "the cheap publications which supply sensation for the millions in penny and halfpenny numbers." Sensational stories tend to emphasize death and destruction.

​

If sensationalism, properly defined, is an attempt to produce excited feelings and strong impressions, often through tales of trouble and disaster, then the inspired authors of the Bible were some of the prime early users of sensationalism. Moses quoted the first news report, Lamech's announcement in chapter 4 of Genesis that he "killed a man for wounding me." Later in Genesis come the original tales of sodomy, leading to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, followed immediately by the incest of Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19).

​

Many more sensational events fill the pages of Genesis and the four following books of Moses. That part of the Bible culminates in the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience found in chapter 28 of Deuteronomy. The culmination of the curses is especially vivid, with Israelites told that unfaithfulness will lead to terrible war and starvation in which "you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you.... {...)Christians tended to object not to all sensationalism, but to the kind which preached that sin was not always wrong. (...)Modem sensationalism, in short, proclaims that there is no king in Israel, so every man is right in doing what he wishes, in being his own oracle. The troubles of others are spectator sport. (...)The type of sensationalism with which we in the twentieth century are most familiar shows the world groaning in sin, yet provides no explanation of why we have such troubles and what we can do about them. The lack of context is not surprising since in the twentieth century many writers use their pens in an attempt to ink out God. But a Christian sensationalism could win readers while glorifying God.

---

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Let’s note that the authors are complaining that news stories are NOT used to promote Christianity. That isn’t anti-Christian bias, it’s an absence of pro-Christian bias.

Their basic point is that even so-called objective journalism promotes something.

Actually they are complaining that news stories misrepresent the facts, and that they do this often in the direction of denigrating the Christian point of view. A history book left out the Protestant Reformation altogether. But I've ordered the revised edition and when I get it maybe I'll have more to say. Apart from the news media I notice all the time that entertainment, movies etc., are always misrepresenting and denigrating Christianity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe, but not supporting is different from active opposition.

quote:

---

Actually they are complaining that news stories misrepresent the facts, and that they do this often in the direction of denigrating the Christian point of view

---

Which might easily be more a product of their bias than anything else.

quote:

---

A history book left out the Protestant Reformation altogether.

---

I would be interested in knowing the truth about that one. (Of course I have a number if history books that don’t mention it - for the very good reason that they aren’t covering that period)

quote:

---

Apart from the news media I notice all the time that entertainment, movies etc., are always misrepresenting and denigrating Christianity.

---

Coming from someone who frequently complains about truthful criticism that is not exactly worth much.